Cablevision Loses Network DVR CaseFox, NBC, MPAA successfully derail new service... ( old news - 12:08PM Friday Mar 23 2007) tags: legal · Video · business · hardware · cable · networkingA federal judge has ruled against Cablevision and in favor of the entertainment industry in a case over the company's planned networked DVR service. The idea was to store the content at the Cablevision head-end, eliminating the need for a local hard drive box. Several entertainment companies and networks sued Cablevision, claiming the system violated copyright law. Cablevision put planned trials on hold, and now the idea will likely reside in the digital dustbin, pending appeal. Time Warner Cable faced similar legal hostilities when they were testing out a network DVR system dubbed "Mystro." They've since been offering a toned down system called "start over," which won't let users fast-forward through ads.
Related:- Sling Media Takes On The Cable Modem
- CableLabs To Test SDV, TiVO Adapter
- New Buzz Phrase: 'Protocol Agnostic'
- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
- Don't Fear The Bandwidth Apocalypse
- CableLabs Greenlights SDV Adapters
- Embarq: Selling User Browsing Data 'Empowers' Users
- Comcast, Like AT&T, Takes Heat For Neighborhood Cabinets
|
 
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I must side with cablevision here 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.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! | |
|  | 
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| 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
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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- | |
| | | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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
| 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! | |
| | | | | |
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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- | |
| | | | | | | 
kballs
@comcast.net
|  Re: I must side with cablevision here
"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). | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
edit:
March 23rd, @07:48PM
| 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 | |
| | | | 
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
·Optimum Online
edit:
March 23rd, @01:25PM
| 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. | |
| | | | |
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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! | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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 | |
| | | | dt_dc
join:2006-09-27
Herndon, VA
| 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 | |
| | | | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL
| 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
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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. | |
| | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| 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 | |
| | | 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| 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
| Re: I must side with cablevision here 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. | |
| | | | |
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  Re: I must side with cablevision here
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... | |
| | apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| 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. You can look at this the opposite way.
A judge has disallowed the head end (the cable company) to record, but DOES allow for DVR's for PRIVATE HOME USE.
Should these knuckleheads in the entertainment industry try to determine or eliminate what the home user can or can't record, or if they can even record at all, point to the judge that ALLOWED this to be the case. | |
| | gh4456
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA
| It is a good decision, b/c you would basically have on-demand tv, as every station would be record 24hours a day. You just pick the shows you want to watch and fast forwarded through the commercials. That is a nightmare scenario for the entertainment industry. As DVR's get more popular, there will be a need for the end user to pay more for the service or some other way to get advertisements in. I envision a setup done the way they do school/govt closings. They will eat the outer edges with advertisements. There is always product placement as well, but I don't see that bringing in as much money as 30 seconds spots. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: I must side with cablevision here I think you need to do your homework again. You are way off with your belief in how it works. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| but the law has no clause for this, the law is not ready to handle modern tech so it was a bad call by the judge because the judge also did not understand modern tech. Advancement shouldnt be changed in the name of old laws old laws should be changed around advancement.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | 
Jehu
dejapoo
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Re: I must side with cablevision here This lawsuit is 100% covered by current laws. You cannot rebroadcast content without consent.
Open-and-shut this is.
This doesn't affect consumers and doesn't put any limits on what you're already doing with yer DVRs. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I must side with cablevision here Wow! Thank you! Open and shut.. great! Ok.. lock this threat.. jehu just said it all.. "open and shut"..
oh wait.. before you lock this thread.. jehu, would you mind looking up the word BROADcast please? I think you will find that it refers to a wide group of people.. this is a narrow cast service meaning a targeted group or individual.
Individual - those who pressed or selected to subscribe/record the show.
Group - those individuals who are part of the same group.
Broadcast - everyone.
--
"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 | |
| | 
cypherstream
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
 ·Cingular Wireless
| I also side with Cablevision and the consumer. This ruling was nothing but a swift kick in the face for both the consumer and Cablevision. Imagine the pros of this technology for the consumer:
1. If you order the DVR, it can be activated to your existing boxes via software download. No more driving to the local office to swap boxes or having a tech come out to do it. You get it right away!
2. All the boxes in your house can access your recorded content. Weather its playing shows or setting recordings, its a true MR-DVR solution.
3. No more tying up your tuner for recording. Cablevision can set limits on how many recordings can occur simultaneously. Imagine if you could record 3 or 4 shows at the same time, but your home tuner can still watch another program.
4. Cablevision can upgrade your DVR storage space on a whim. No more limited 120 / 160 GB Hard drives.
5. Not having to deploy very expensive DVR's to the customers means quite a bit of cost savings on Cablevisions end. Sure there's the initial expense of developing, testing, and deploying the technology, but it will eventually pay for itself. If they can save money perhaps they can use that capitol to bring on more services, or limit the extent of annual price increases.
I think it's total B.S. that they were sued in the first place. Your setting the recording, Your watching it when you want... it's no different from a home based DVR. So what the storage is in another location. There are security mechanisms in place where no one can access your content but you! It's not like your sharing your recordings on the internet for the whole world to see.
It bothers me when a government entity or another company doesn't understand a certain technology so the always assume the worst. Oh boy so Fox, CNN, etc.. doesn't quite understand what's going on here so oh my god, its copyright infringement. Give me a break.
What's next? Are they going to go after every provider that offers multi room DVR? Oh my god, it's stored in the living room but hes watching it in the bedroom!!!! What a crime!!!! Better send them to jail!
They all all big babies who have to be spoon fed from some Judge who is probably in his late 60's and has no real understanding of technology. After all, hes a Judge, not a network engineer. Grow the hell up media companies, times are a changing.
Sorry if I sound bitter, but I just think this whole argument should of never happened in the first place. I fail to see how this does harm to anyone. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I must side with cablevision here The ONLY way this will EVER change and the people will EVER take back control of things is for the public to stop spending money with them..
.. that's never going to happen though. It would be SO nice if just for ONE month, EVERYONE would disconnect their cable or satellite service and not buy any DVDs. One can wish.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the content provider making a living. I think they are bringing some great stuff to the public for entertainment.. I'm just getting tired of the whipping that comes with it.. I feel like the cattle and they are the ranchers.
--
"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 | |
| 
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | Ha! If they won't let me fast forward through commercials, I'm not paying extra for DVR service. | |
| | 
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Re: Ha! Ditto | |
| | Shoreline
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
Santa Clara, CA
| PC, video card, capturing device, software, record, edit, burn, and done. I would have went the route of Tivo/DVR, since it's slightly more simple, but since their interests are with the same people who want to control my rights to record what I please with the TV service I pay for, I take the less desirable, yet effective path.
This whole forcing people into viewing commercials thing is a bullying tactic that I won't have any part of. If I don't want to watch commercials, then I sure as hell won't, whether they like it or not. | |
| | | 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| Well Well The computer I am presently building will have video capture, mondo sized HD's are cheap, Tiger Direct has a internal 500 gig WD for 139.95, and a 750 gig HD for hundred bucks more. I have a DVR and love the thing but if I loose control of how I can use it, it's out of here. and I will use the computer to do the same thing.
What I would love to see is a DishTV card to go into your computer now that would be cool, and would most likely cause the MPAA to crap their collective pants. 
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
edit:
March 23rd, @02:10PM
| Re: Well said by Transmaster :Well The computer I am presently building will have video capture, mondo sized HD's are cheap, Tiger Direct has a internal 500 gig WD for 139.95, and a 750 gig HD for hundred bucks more. I have a DVR and love the thing but if I loose control of how I can use it, it's out of here. and I will use the computer to do the same thing. What I would love to see is a DishTV card to go into your computer now that would be cool, and would most likely cause the MPAA to crap their collective pants. they would shut it down just like the RIAA does to the MP3 recorders for XM and Sirrus Satellite radio.
infact XM used to have USB radio tuner and it got sued out of existance because while the XM software didnt people made 3rd party software that did allow recording of the stream. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Unfortunately I think copyright law supports that decision Its ridiculous, because Cable TV has delays and caches copyrighted content to do their job anyways, but Cablevision isn't an individual protected by the Home Recording Act. The copyright owners can dictate whatever requirements they like to someone not protected. Which is why its important that we protect our own fair use rights, so that we aren't dictated to in the same way. | |
| | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Unfortunately I think copyright law supports that decision "Cablevision isn't an individual protected by the Home Recording Act"
* ding *
Cablevision is (was) selling a recording service as a commercial endeavor, which is clearly not covered by the Home Recording Act.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| 
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY |  MPAA negatively linfluences the progression of technology
For a second, I forgot this was already happening. | |
| 
sonofjay
Mission Accomplished - Bush May 1, 2003
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-14
North Attleboro, MA
edit:
March 23rd, @01:54PM
| n/m .. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Pretty silly decision The only difference between the network DVR and the set-top DVR is the length of the cable connecting the DVR to the TV.
Of course, perhaps the judge is merely laying the groundwork to outlaw DVRs entirely; the industry is still looking to overturn Sony v. Betamax. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| many ways to skin a cat!!! Why not just GIVE AWAY separate DVR's FREE to customers who sign up for 1 year..? And it would be so much a coincidence that they work so well with their own set-top box as they talk to each other with a cable or wirless rf, etc...
Keep in mind.. this also would kind of derail any hopes of cablecos and possibly telcos from engaging in truly interactive programming on a wide scale.. | |
| Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON
| It's a good ruling in the end. I think it was a good ruling , You think the content creaters would like this idea more as a home user can not take the hard drive out and do a content dump and make a digital copie like you can now with soem DVR's as being on the head unit it wold be more protected and they would have more control. Look at it this way it is a win for the consumer. When the Cable goes out i have a colection of recordings to watch. If I recod a bunch of content and want to take it to the cottage I can.
It's an odd rullin gin my mind but a good one in the end for consumers. | |
| 
Rob A
Jets 19 - Steelers 16
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Haha CV fails again. | |
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| What they need is a buzzword like "Scheduled Viewing" etc Sounds to me like all they need to do is "Cache" the program streams for "Efficient distribution" and then allow subscribers to view the content on their own schedule.
Instead of calling it record, rebroadcast, etc call it "Scheduled viewing" or similar buzzword.
That way people will understand it's not some violation of copyright laws.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| These copyright laws have one intent... They aren't designed to "Protect artists and creators" or content.
All these laws are about PROTECTION of the MONOPOLY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND IT'S PROFITS FOR CERTAIN LARGE CORPORATIONS ONLY. They are effectively looking to block all modern technology which allows Consumers to obtain content from other methods or systems.
All these recent copyright laws are really just controls on how you the consumer is allowed to run your life and blocks to prevent third parties from getting in at the expense of the legacy content holders antiquated systems.
They are all BS and they all need to be struck down hard.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | |
|
|
