Five PVR Users Allowed To Join Replay Court Fight 151
hachete writes with this snippet from the Mercury News: " 'A federal judge in Los Angeles agreed to allow consumers to join the legal battle between Hollywood and the makers of the ReplayTV 4000 digital video recorder to defend their uses of the device.'" The five customers chosen to add some insight include craigslist founder Craig Newmark.
Scary. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently only consumers on the suit will answer those questions. Transferring a show to your laptop is fair use. How is skipping commercials fair use?
Calling that fair use grants the point that not watching commercials is a theft that is only "legally permissible" if there's a kid in the room. Going to get more chips during an ad is obviously now theft. If it's only okay if you've got a kid handy, but then you should send the kid to the kitchen and watch the damn ads yourself. That satisfies everyone, according to the judge: the sponsors are seen, you get your food and the innocent little child is protected from the commercials in a legally permissible way.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me be blunt: that's really not my problem.
If the networks can no longer afford their existing business model, they'll just have to adapt. I have no patience or sympathy for industries who, because they can't adapt, try to stop all progress.
Besides, if you were to examine my list of list of shows to be recorded, you'd notice they're almost all on HBO...
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're ignorant.
Nobody owes the broadcasting industry anything. If they go under the world would probably be better off. Do you really need to see Friends every week? That bitch Kudrow could use some hard reality that me and my friends who would ordinarily work for a living, but currently are out of work, are feeling right now.
What about Baseball? Oops, they're on strike because millions-per-year ain't enough? Are you that much of a slave? Do you make millions per year? Can you even sit through a whole, boring baseball game? Tell the truth!
-- Jessica
The mutant geek grrl from Hell.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
$20 per month for commercial free tv? Where do I sign up?
Derek
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmmm.... the internet seems to do it pretty well. Even the cable company does; you think they have a separate network for people who get basic cable, extended cable, and digital cable, not to mention the various combinations of channels you can get when you combine that choice with the option to get the subscription channels and cable modems and pay-per-view. Of course not. Access to content you don't pay for is essentially prohibited.
It shouldn't be too hard to provide indivudial channels which the end user can choose. Perhaps charge per channel per month, with an option to pay per program on channels that you don't subscribe to, etc.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I too have very little sympathy for the content industry for similar reasons.
Re:Call me ignorant, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It appears Sagan was remarkably prescient, and I hope that he's right about the outcomes of both the legal fight and the arms race!
Product placements/need new biz model (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Possible infringing uses don't outlaw a device (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, when Larry Lessig said at OSCon, what are you doing? I thought -- Hey, I'm actually doing something! I hope to attend the actual trial.
Non stupid advertising... (Score:2, Interesting)
What if you just don't like the commercials? Think about this for a second -- I don't mind watching commericals that are informative, or are for products I might have need of. What I don't like is being drown in the deluse of rubbish commericals that are loud, annoying, graphic or don't otherwise suit my taste. The sort of grating commericals that turn your stomach in disgust, as you think of the societal degeneration necessary for the commercial to have been produced. the worst sort of bad. That said, I seem to be suggesting targeted commericals. Privacy issues aside, I might not mind being notified that someone has a deal on a fast laptop, or that some company has lowered the price on some product I had previously been interested. Perhaps an ad for a product that solves a long-time problem of mine (flat garden hose anyone??). Hell, even objective commercials that (well, I'd have to have some reason to trust the source) clearly explain the features of Product Q in a way that isn't misleading. I can almost respect advertising like that, couldn't you? A sort of thoughtful, intelligent commercial that aims at answering consumer questions or provides some way of getting more information to users? Infomercials move too slowly and are much too "lowest common denominator" for my taste... but I can only watch so many convulsingly bad commercials on TNN before I can't even stand to watch startrek. Is it any wonder advertising isn't effective anymore when I have to watch the same garbage back commercial 257 times a day on 13 channels? ("To-me tonaca is mad! GEt Glad!" my ears. they bleed!!)
Do you see what I'm saying? Quasi-Interactive TV. Just imagine. You get an advertisement XML file that your little PVR renders to a commercial in one of the following categories: 1. Smart, consise 2. Loud, annoying. 3. Old-English 4. Funny. 5. Random
I know its a bit utopian.. but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Could this possibly be another case of big money attempting to outlaw new technology to protect their existing business model?
just to remind people, this is a team effort (Score:3, Interesting)
I was present at the hearing Monday, and heard the lead Hollywood attorney actually say that they don't think consumers should be heard in the suit. Frankly, in all confidence I feel that they mean this in general.
Some local coverage emphasizes my involvement in this, which is unfair, but it has to do with the craigslist connection.
Craig