how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
197 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | How is it illegal? We can argue all day about whether skipping commercials destroys the broadcast TV model, whether the broadcasters had it coming to them, or even whether there are any commercials entertaining enough to watch.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is what the networks' legal argument is here. I've heard them say that the Hopper destroys their business model. OK, so? Nowhere is it written that you have to watch commercials. I know that may be an inconvenient fact for the broadcasters, but it's the truth. The fact that Dish has automated the process really sucks for the networks, but, again, there is no requirement that people watch these commercials.
Am I missing something here, or are the networks basically bluffing their way through this? | |
|  | | Re: How is it illegal? Only thing I can think of is that their contracts forbid it. Even if that's the case there can't be anything "illegal" about it. It would be more of a civil matter.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
| | | | Re: How is it illegal? said by battleop:Only thing I can think of is that their contracts forbid it. Even if that's the case there can't be anything "illegal" about it. It would be more of a civil matter.
i think you are confusing a few terms. This is a civil case, in that it does not involve a government prosecutor. Disputes between 2 private entities are all civil. The "illegality" of the device is exactly what the civil court (usually a jury in local/state courts) decides. The networks are suing Dish claiming that the Hopper violates copyright laws. There doesnt seem to be any breach-of-contract disputes on the surface of the suite, so if the court sides with them, then naturally the device will be found to be illegal. then the court would decide the punishment: royalties paid to the networks, a lump fee paid to the networks, banning the device entirely, a combination of them all, or something else entirely. | |
| | | | | Re: How is it illegal? If they're arguing it violates copyright, I'm wondering if they're taking the same position as the movie studios did against the company who, a few years ago, sold a service whereby you bought a DVD, sent it to them, and they edited out the "objectionable" parts, and sent the edited version back to you. The studios sued them and won because the company was actually editing the movie and sending back an edited copy. This seems like a direct parallel, provided that the Hopper is actually editing out the ads. If the complete program, including ads, is still there, and the device is simply using data provided in a separate file to know what parts to skip over, then the program hasn't really been altered. One would hope that Dish's lawyers were smart enough to see the potential problem and advise the engineers in how to work around it. | |
|
| | I think it is bluffing.
If I am not wrong they are making the assertion that you are violating their copyright by modifying their content.
2 Things to consider:
1.) You would have to actually modify their content.
a. - Is the content actually being cut out of the program?
i. - - If so, is a commercial actually part of the program to begin with?
b. - Was the content still there just flagged to be skipped?
2.) Do they actually own the commercial content to begin with or does the product company or those they hired to produce the commercial own the rights to it? | |
| | | | Re: How is it illegal? I'm thinking the same thing.
I don't know how the Hopper works, but, if I had to guess, I'd think that you'd have someone flagging the beginning and end of commercial breaks and then pushing that out to the DVR's. As long as the timecode on the recorded shows matches up with what Dish is working with, which it most definitely would, then the DVR can simply skip the portions that the data tells it to skip. And, if the commercials are still there, then no modification took place.
But, even if a modification does occur, what if I, as a viewer, instruct my DVR to record a show without commercials, and it then uses data from Dish to do that? How is that different from telling the DVR to record this program but not that one and having it use program guide info pushed from Dish to decide where to start and stop the recording? I could choose to record two shows I want to see that air from 7-7:30 and 8-8:30, respectively, while skipping the turkey of a show that airs in between. Maybe the network really wants me to watch that show because they feel I fit the demographic they want to reach, but I don't want to see it. Obviously, it would be ridiculous for the network to say that I must also record that show. Or, in their bizarro world, would it??? | |
| | | | | Re: How is it illegal? We record sports OTA and fast forward. Who buys any of the shit they sell anyway?
Especially the "oh, wait, there's more" crap.
I prefer to support PBS. | |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| illegal=unlawful not nessecerily crimnal.
It can't really be illegal for the end user to use "the easy button", however it probably breaks the content providers contract with DISH for broadcast rights to facilatate instant removal of ALL commerials for profit (IE DISH charges you for the EASY BUTTON) This is different then indivuals choosing to remove/skip commerials themselves, more akin to rediting and reselling parts of the program for profit.
And BTW markers already exisit within the programs marking x seconds before a commerial break,start commerial breaks xx seconds long,return to program and so on (it infomation is in the "blanking bars" (series of dots and dashes at the top of a tv seen if it overscans) this has been controling local commerial insertion automatically since the sixties/seventies similar info was used manually since TV started. | |
| | | said by ISurfTooMuch:We can argue all day about whether skipping commercials destroys the broadcast TV model, whether the broadcasters had it coming to them, or even whether there are any commercials entertaining enough to watch.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is what the networks' legal argument is here. I've heard them say that the Hopper destroys their business model. OK, so? Nowhere is it written that you have to watch commercials. I know that may be an inconvenient fact for the broadcasters, but it's the truth. The fact that Dish has automated the process really sucks for the networks, but, again, there is no requirement that people watch these commercials.
Am I missing something here, or are the networks basically bluffing their way through this?
from the article:
quote:
CBS, NBC and Fox have sued, saying the feature violates copyright laws
not sure what copyright laws they are claiming this violates. without knowing more i agree that this is a market grasping at straws trying to protect their current business model. | |
|
| |
|
