Cablevision Suspends Network DVR Trial Files counter-claim against networks After being sued for its plan to offer DVR functionality from the head-end of their network, Cablevision has fired back at the entertainment industry in a counter-claim. "The RS-DVR is no more a VOD service than traditional set-top-storage DVRs are VOD services. Plaintiffs’ new challenge to Cablevision’s product represents a misguided invocation of copyright law, which would stifle innovation and roll back the rights of consumers," Cablevision has stated to the court. The AP reports Cablevision has suspended their trial.
|
 RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1
1 edit | *IF* I had cable I think I would prefer a set top box.
entertainment industry in a counter-claim. "The RS-DVR is no more a VOD service than traditional set-top-storage DVRs are VOD services. Plaintiffs’ new challenge to Cablevision’s product represents a misguided invocation of copyright law, which would stifle innovation and roll back the rights of consumers," My rights are to watch what I want when I want, not to be dependent on someone else to feed me what I paid for. In this area a lot of people have gone to satellite TV because of cable outages. That is what a DVR is for, record your shows and watch them later, even if the cable is dead.
It is all about power over the consumer. All sides want to be able to monitor and control your viewing pleasure for various reasons.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | points the only challenge that I'm interested in is to the ability to just bypass commercials, it's the only reason i use dvr.
(comcast take note: injecting commercials into your "fan" is NOT endearing yourself to any of your customers!) | |
|  | | | Re: points I doubt Cablevision has your best interest in mind. By controlling the timeshifting they control you. Philips' technology that would prohibit FF/RW, changing channels, etc. during commercials is probably what they'll implement. Evil knows evil, and this is one evil plan.
Why not simply make DVR cable STB with WORKING USB ports and let the cowsumers buy their own increased storage capacity instead? I know, its a rhetorical question (as Cablevision wouldn't address that aspect anytime soon). | |
|
 CPMBroadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Brooklyn, NY | Cablevision Cablevision account just been capped. LOL | |
|  RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | I guess I'm confused about this issue.... Option # 1...
If I want DVR service from my cable provider, Adelphia...I rent a DVR box from them and pay them a monthly fee of 4.95.
Option # 2....
If they decided to do what Cablevision did, there's no DVR box and the content is stored on their equipment instead. I still pay them a fee.
The copyright holders are claiming that with option 2, they aren't sharing in the fees and their copyrights are being violated.
Apparently with option 1 which exists now, they aren't sharing in the fees either.
My questions are this:
I guess the whole issue comes down to where the content is stored?
Why aren't they claiming they're owed a fee for option # 1?
It's still their copyrighted material that is being broadcast by the cable co. and recorded by the consumer.
I also don't understand why this is an issue at all.
Obviously these cable co's have agreements with these copyright holders to distribute their material don't they?
Otherwise, how would they even be able to broadcast it over their networks and allow we viewers to view it?
What cablevision is proposing here seems to me to be a money saver, eliminating costly dvr's all over the place and would ultimately and hopefully lower the cost of this service for consumers.
I really don't see where cablevision or any other cable co. would really be benefiting any more than they already are or where the copyright holders would be losing anything they already don't get a piece of anyway.
Anyways..obviously I don't understand the dynamics of how this industry works in this regard...nor do I claim to.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can clear this up a bit.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | | | Re: I guess I'm confused about this issue.... I think you can sum it all up in one word... Money
That is what this is all about. The cable company wants to save money, by not having to deploy DVRs to everyone. This method of time shifting also fits in well with the idea of a switched video service.
For the content providers they see this as competing with their new sales service where you can buy the latest shows from Itunes or other services. The justification for stopping Cablevision comes from the fact that Cablevision is the one doing the recording instead of the consumer. The Supreme Court allowed viewers to make VHS recordings for time shifting, but that ruling says nothing about third parties making the recording for the consumer. So the content providers see this as an opportunity to stop Cablevision or more likely to get Cablevision to pay a fee.
I think the content providers are wrong since Cablevision is only recording what the viewer asks them to record. Still, I can't blame the content providers for trying to make more money. | |
| | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I guess I'm confused about this issue.... said by nanoflower:I think you can sum it all up in one word... Money That is what this is all about. The cable company wants to save money, by not having to deploy DVRs to everyone. This method of time shifting also fits in well with the idea of a switched video service. For the content providers they see this as competing with their new sales service where you can buy the latest shows from Itunes or other services. The justification for stopping Cablevision comes from the fact that Cablevision is the one doing the recording instead of the consumer. The Supreme Court allowed viewers to make VHS recordings for time shifting, but that ruling says nothing about third parties making the recording for the consumer. So the content providers see this as an opportunity to stop Cablevision or more likely to get Cablevision to pay a fee. I think the content providers are wrong since Cablevision is only recording what the viewer asks them to record. Still, I can't blame the content providers for trying to make more money. A very good summary of the situation. It will be a year or two before the lawsuit is decided and then appealed and appealed again. So the entertainment industry buys a lot of delay by suing.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
4 edits | Re: I guess I'm confused about this issue.... said by Romney2012:said by nanoflower:... I think you can sum it all up in one word... Money ... ... It will be a year or two before the lawsuit is decided and then appealed and appealed again. ... And where will the dollars come from, to fund the lawyers?
On Long Island, there are almost 1 milion subscribers. At $50-$100, and more, each, that is a MONTHLY revenue of 50 to 100 MILLLION dollars. Per month!! Over a billion dollars per year. Enough to fund ALL the services of some countries.
And even with the DVR box, and certainly with the network DVR, what happens when you terminate your service with Cablevision? Poof ... your carefully recorded evidence that the METS or Yankees won the World Series disappears. Even the Supreme Court ruling did NOT comtemplate that. It's NOT "Time Shifting". It is "Money Shifting". From us to a few chosen Dolans, et. al. And what do we charge THEM to share our backyards and public right of ways for their ugly wires?
»Who cares about network DVR anyhow?
»www.mbc-thebridge.com/viewbridge···e_id=457
ooops ... 3 million suscribers ... that is 3 Billion dollars per year, for the "manual" labor in carrying "heavy" photons and electrons down fiber and copper, once the plant is built.  | |
| | | | | | | Re: I guess I'm confused about this issue.... The money will come from the consumers on both sides. That's how these corporate level lawsuits always go. It's a no-win situation for the consumer (as a whole).
As for the DVR box it's the same as if you were renting a physical box. You have to copy the material to a VCR or DVD yourself if you want to keep the material. You won't be able to take the DVR to another company's service so the network DVR isn't a change from that point.
Although it's not clear how long you will be able to do that with the effort the content providers are making to prevent us from making recordings. | |
|
| | | | Heaven forbid they just ask their cowsumers to buy the DVR. Doh, no original thinking allowed in their boardrooms.
If the want to reduce the operating costs then mitigate them to their cowsumers. Its not like that hasn't been done by their satellite competitiors. | |
|
|
1 edit | You pay a fee either way. All the DVR is is movie stores on a ahrd drive in the DVR device. So now you can record them, take out the hard drvie transfer it to your comoputer/ and then keep recording for as much as you want? You do realize that right? That's probably why they want to do away with the DVR.
I replaced mine with a 80 Gb drive so I can record many things. All the DVR does is record it and convert it to XVID (really good quality videos, low amount of space taken up.) IT's wild how it works | |
| | | | said by Rick:Why aren't they claiming they're owed a fee for option # 1? It's still their copyrighted material that is being broadcast by the cable co. and recorded by the consumer. Because option #1 was already ruled on by the Supreme Court when Sony won the Betamax case based on "time-shifting." A physical DVR is the same as a VCR. | |
|
| |
|
|
