RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Networks being inconsistent
Right now the networks offer streaming of the shows via their website yet they claim that CV streaming a saved copy via the Network DVR is not allowed. If they are screaming about ad revenue, then all that is needed is for CV to report to them how many viewing there are so the networks can add it to their Nelson figures for charging the advertisers (remember that the CV copy will have the original ads still there). Note: This is just CV reporting on eyeballs not paying anything for the viewings.
BTW: I see no difference between the DVR physically being in my home and being physically (or virtually) located at the CV head end. The network DVR is just the equivalent of a physical DVD being being controlled via a built-in Web Page instead of the buttons or a remote control. It is the same, IMO, as a Virtual Internet Server or a Co-Located Internet Server Host. What would they say if my DVR was physically located at the Head End and feed my TV over my Cable Connection? The fact that the DVR is virtual in lieu of a physical discrete device should not alter the situation just like Virtual Hosting is the same as having a Co-Located Server Host Machine. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| said by RARPSL  :Right now the networks offer streaming of the shows via their website yet they claim that CV streaming a saved copy via the Network DVR is not allowed. BTW: I see no difference between the DVR physically being in my home and being physically (or virtually) located at the CV head end. The key words in your first statement is their website.
The difference according to the content providers is that you are in a private home while the cable company is a profit-making business that is retransmitting their copyrighted content. If you attempt to make a profit off the content don't be surprised if the content providers are willing to take you all the way to the SCOTUS. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to RARPSL
I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. Heck if anything it acutally reduces the ability to grab the copyrighted material by the end user. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| said by Neyland :I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. The difference is the content providers want the for profit cable companies to have to obtain their permission. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| Is this a matter of 10 people record 'LOST' so the network DVR records it once and grants all 10 people that had prior requests to recording access so this is considered a
rebroadcast?
It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| said by Neyland :It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. It could be argued that if I receive a broadcast station from the cable headend for my private enjoyment that the cable company is simply acting as my antenna. Whether I like it or not (and if retransmission consent agreements increase my bill I don't) the content providers ultimately won their argument against that in court. |
|
