SonicBlue Ordered to Spy on ReplayTV Viewers 431
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Got outrage? According to a story on SiliconValley.com, a federal magistrate has ordered SonicBlue to track ReplayTV users' every click to see what they're watching, recording, skipping (commercials) and e-mailing to friends. The info is to be given to the entertainment industry control freaks who are suing SonicBlue for allegedly abetting copyright violations."
Disney needs a boycott (Score:4, Interesting)
BOYCOTT DISNEY.
Don't buy Disney products. Don't go to DisneyWorld, Don't go to Disney flicks.
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashbots will all proclaim their hate for Disney, and will refuse to buy Disney products, right up until Miramax or Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures releases a film they want to see. Then, they will flock to the theater in droves.
How else do you explain the fact that a quarter of the stories on Slashdot are condemnations of the entertainment industry, and another quarter of the stories are slobbering writeups about Sci-fi movies or the X-files?
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:2, Interesting)
Set up some Mic**y M**se parody web pages that spread the message, and let the whole Internet mirror them, until it shows up first on Google.
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Fight it. Discontinuity can only follow. If We are not all the same, society will certainly crumble!
Seriously - just because a story gets posted by the editors doesn't mean that everyone on
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people say: "Boycott Disney!
Some people say: "I'm going to watch whatever I feel like!"
And yet others say: "whut??" as they scratch there ass...
THERE IS NO SLASHDOT COLLECTIVE
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that there is no /. collective agreement on these issues, and really you can't fault thousands of people for not agreeing to the exact same positions.
But the onus on the editors is a little stronger - they are always making editorial comments about non-free software, restrictive legislation, civil liberties on the 'net, etc. Yet they also support the latest DVDs, movie reviews every weekend, and playing non-free games on their Windows partitions that they sometimes forget that they have.
So while you can't really expect the /. readership to agree on anything, I think it is more reasonable to expect the /. editorial staff to put forward a cohesive editorial policy on what they support and what they oppose. They have a "bully pulpit", but right now the message from that pulpit is sadly inconsistent. Until that changes, we won't be seeing any /.-launched boycotts doing any real good in the world.
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that will work, is money, and the only way that we will pay is if it becomes easy and safe to do so. One way to do this is to send something like a $500 yearly check to some organization to hold (SLashdot can do it, they get to keep the interest and maybe even make more money through investing that money - sort of a pseudo bank) and every time something like this happens, Slashdot can have a money hammer on top of the offending Senator's head. One click of the hammer, bamm $10 bucks against him or her. Pool that money and somehow display how much money has been gathered so far so as to encourage more donating...MAYBE then something will get done through Slashdot. Any other way will not work.
Boycotts will not work and letters will not work.
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:2)
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Sam Nunn
Donald F. McHenry
Donald V. Fites
Helene L. Kaplan
Franklin A. Thomas
Michael A. Miles
Carl E. Reichardt
Michael Eisner
Howard Stringer
You can boycott disney all you want, but until the top few people agree with us slashdot minorities you will have an uphill battle.
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disney needs a boycott (Score:3, Informative)
One more nail in the privacy coffin (Score:2, Insightful)
Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an escalation of arms at this point. Total war. Never in our histroy have we been subjected to such comprehensive privacy invasion.
It doesn't matter that the data doesn't say Mr. Smith watched such and such. The thought that the entertainment industry will have access to this data implies that they will use it against the viewers. Incredible.
Maybe they should read what the court has said in the past about privacy and viewing habits.
Here is the link to Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 [epic.org]
Assholes.
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not directly say the users name, however acording to the article, all the data will be associated with a unique identifer for each viewer. I dont think it would be that difficult to find the way back to the origional user
The idea that a judge would order this is just sickening.
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:3, Informative)
So they have proof that every subscriber is useing it for illigal activity?
Also i think that this means we might see a million geek march up to this courthouse, as we are all entitled appear in court and contest the records collected and all allegations against us.
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
If only the rest of the justice system worked that way. The police, when not able to produce evidence that someone is engaging in illegal activity, would require individuals to wear tracking devices to prove that they're not doing anything bad.
I think this is exactly what's going on in this case, except the accuser will be able to get away with it.
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
So, has the court offered clear and convincing evidence, etc? If not -- and seeing how this is information that is not being gathered at the moment, then the court seems to be exceeding its authority here, and should issue wiretap or search warrants for each subscriber it wants SonicBlue to monitor.
I hope SonicBlue is appealing this.
Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 (Score:3, Funny)
I believe that american courts can already do that, by using the "John Doe 1" through to "John Doe 112,300" naming convention.
Makes you wonder how useful it would be to name yourself John Doe. Would utter confusion at the courtroom suffice, or would you be able to cause a divide-by-0 error on your speeding tickets?
Centralized data gathering? (Score:2, Insightful)
a major dilema (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, maybe if we could get everyone to do nothing but record Tech TV for 24 hours as a protest of our privacy being violated.
Re:a major dilema (Score:3, Funny)
Ok I'm stuck, do I avoid Sonic Blue's PVR's because it will invade my privacy, or do I buy PVR from Sonic Blue, because they are as outraged about this as I am. I suppose I could record all kinds of crap on it too, that would at least subvert their data.
What to do is easy.... get 3 SonicBlue PVR's. Set them ALL to tape the Golden Girls everytime it comes on Lifetime, Law & Order everytime it comes on A&E, and grab as much Cinemax softcore porn as possible. Make sure to have the three PVR's just randomly grabbing so that the monitors catch your "unique viewing habit."
Re:a major dilema (Score:5, Insightful)
> Ok I'm stuck, do I avoid Sonic Blue's PVR's because it will invade my
> privacy, or do I buy PVR from Sonic Blue, because they are as
> outraged about this as I am. I suppose I could record all kinds of crap
> on it too, that would at least subvert their data.
>
> Hmmm, maybe if we could get everyone to do nothing but record Tech
> TV for 24 hours as a protest of our privacy being violated.
If Sonic Blue is indeed the victim here (along with their customers), you could try to help them by carefully using your unit so the info they get supports their case: record and view all commercials (from the kitchen if necessary), erase programs frequently so you are not "stealing", etc.
Since they will be watching email as well, be sure to email all of your "friends" (on hotmail or wherever you can pick up some free accounts for all of your pets, pet rocks, stuffed animals, etc.) on how unconstitutional the judge's ruling is (cite quotes from the US Constitution with plenty "IANAL"s). General rants on the idiocy of the MPAA and RIAA on IP issues would also be apropos (don't forget Eisner's act of piracy -- showing a pirated Sony movie -- during the Senate Hearing with Hollings). Long discussions of the relative merits of the various open source licenses might also be educational (again, lots of "IANAL"s).
This privacy invasion stuff has long since gotten out of hand. I live in Missouri and in the spring here we get so much pollen that it coats everything outside in yellow powder. I have chronic sinusitis, and I imagine lots of people have bad hayfever. Imagine my surprise when I went to the Walmart pharmacy to pick up some over-the-counter decongestant and they not only asked for photo ID, but also took down my name and address (and possibly phone number or social security/driver's license number)! This, as the sign proudly informed me, was for "the safety of our community"!!! Yes, of course I know Sudafed is used to make an illegal drug. It is also the only decongestant on the market (brands don't matter, they all use the same chemical), and antihistamines don't do me any good. I'd switch if I could find another choice that worked for me, believe me.
So I (and all my fellow nasal and sinus sufferers) are such dangers to our community that they need our names and addresses?!? Is the Constitution null and void if your sinuses are swollen? Most importantly: Is my personal info going to appear on ebay tonight to be sold to the highest bidder (all they had was a sign and an ordinary notebook -- this could have been some kind of a scam)?
"War on Piracy" (not coined yet, but it will be), "War on Terror", and "War on Drugs": they all sound so heroic and protective. But they arise out of the same mindless, false patriotism as resulted in pink and white rags on sticks, and pathetic little flags lying in the road. Americans, especially after 911, are like frightened children, seeking any promise of safety, at any price. The power hungry vultures in Washington, and the greedy sharks of the corporations (particularly members of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft) are more than happy to give it to them, at the cost of their freedom.
The way I see it, we can either stand up for our freedom now, or we can suffer four more years and await the great couch potato riots of 2006. That's when all the TVs in America stop working, either due to not being HDTV, or being too early a version of HDTV, or because Windows for TVs bought each American $4 million worth of content licenses then crashed and lost them all. Regardless of the cause, American couch potatos will rise up and demand the right to have working TVs and VCRs. Hopefully some wise person will also throw in a recommitment to ideals expressed in the Bill of Rights (but don't hold your breath).
Or we could call Mothra:
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming.
At the end of noon we will make our prayer."
From the song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
Re:a major dilema (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:a major dilema (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a major dilema (Score:2)
Re:a major dilema (Score:2)
Better yet set it to record every dopey "judge" show for a week - Judge Judy, People's court, Moral court, Divorce court, Judge Mathis, Night court, etc.
Might be simpler to just record the CourtTV channel for a few days straight.
-
Somebody tell me (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also interesting to see the hypocrasy when AOL-Time Warner's CEO denouncing products like TiVO and ReplayTV while AOL is making deals with Tivo...
It adds somewhat of a twist when Sonicblue is ordered to infringe on its user's privacy and not TiVo.
This goes further than what Tivo does (Score:2)
The court ruling also requires SonicBlue to track individual users -- not by name, but through ``unique identification numbers.''
This goes further than what Tivo does, as Tivo sends no unique ID with the data it collects. Wholly anonymous.
Re:This goes further than what Tivo does (Score:2)
Wrong. TiVo's data is keyed to the ID of your TiVo unit, which is unique.
Just let the bastards tax us! (Score:3, Funny)
Sony, BMG and the others could then set up "free download" sites where Net surfers could drop in and grab as much music as they wanted, absolutely without further charge.
The huge revenues thus generated would be paid back to the recording/music industries and apportioned according to the number of downloads of each album/movie.
Likewise, some of the money would be aportioned to video libraries to compensate them for the losses they'd suffer.
Hey, it's a win-win-win situation.
The big companies get massive wads of cash. They can then pay the artists. Copy-protection is no longer an issue. Plus, you could then afford to listen to (and perhaps grow to like) a much wider range of music/movies.
Even though I'm just kidding, I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone seriously suggests such a plan.
Just look at the lame technology/IP bills proposed already!
Re:Just let the bastards tax us! (Score:2, Insightful)
NONONONONO (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh sry i just read that you were kidding. Still a bad idea imo.
Re:Just let the bastards tax us! (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright law was intended to protect writers, musicians, actors, etc from being exploited by groups of people who want to profit off of mass reproduction of creative work. Record labels fit that definition exactly. As long as the people who put actual artistic effort into a work are payed, then it is a valid copyright system.
Re:Just let the bastards tax us! (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, a good idea, music and art are public goods, so lets have the public pay for it.
So. 2% of income you say? Well I think it should be 3%. No actually, 5% sounds pretty fair. I mean, think about all that music that's been stolen over the years. Billions of dollars lost, thousands of musicians died of starvation. Okay, you got me, I made the last one up completely. But then again I'm in the entertainment business, we make stuff up for a living.
And of course that will have to be increased by 1/2% per year. For inflation, DUH! What? I don't know what 95 times 2 is, why do you ask?
And of course we'll have to figure out the best way to distribute the funds to the artists. I say we go by top-40 radio airplay. We can just review everybody's contract and be good to go.... No I've never heard of "Independent Artists" is that the new group on Arista? Eh? You mean there are musicians who don't have record deals with us? Well, fuck 'em, they can get their own percentage, we got ours already.
This tax sounds like a good plan to me!!
Sincerely,
Record Company Executive
That's how it's done in Germany! (Score:3, Interesting)
For the money I pay, I'm granted rights of fair use. I can make personal copies and I'm even allowed to share with personal friends. You can also use text excerpts for educational purposes.
Oh - and it looks like we are also getting some DMCA-like laws that make it illegal to circumvent copy protection. Even if we're explicitly charged for the right to copy the content.
Its Just wrong... (Score:2, Funny)
Childhood in America (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the new millenium. The enemy is wealth and control, they have no borders, and it appears they have won.
Re:Childhood in America (Score:3, Insightful)
we seem to be the minority.
Hate to say it... (Score:4, Insightful)
... but as much as this pisses me off (the invasion of privacy part), isn't this exactly what the industry needs?
Seriously, once stats like this are collected, either they'll realize that this isn't a threat (and then really start pushing digital tv, stop suing companies like sonicblue etc..), or we'll be right back to where we are right now.
I understand the slippery-slope argument and all, but how the hell are you going to convince tv networks that piracy isn't happening unless you do something like this?
And if piracy *is* happening, wake the fuck up. It's illegal. You knew the free ride wouldn't last forever. Being able to freely copy anything you want isn't a constitutional right, even under the guise of fair use (which, by the way, isn't even established by the constitution).
Re:Hate to say it... (Score:2, Insightful)
All I have to say to this is appeasement didn't work against Hitler. If they realize no one will stop them they will just get more and more greedy, maybe shows will become 15 min instead of the 20ish min they are now to make more room for advertisements.
Re:Hate to say it... (Score:2)
But the general point still holds -- copying is the norm, and exceptions carved out of that, themselves with exceptions again.
Send to another Replay = Space shifting (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, one of the problems with the Replay and Tivo is that while you can conveniently time shift with them (great to not miss shows and have them waitting for me when I get home at ~9:30 PM), you can't conveniently space shift. When I move out of my dinky apartment and into a large apartment or small hour, I'll have more than one television. I then have the choice of building an advanced audio/video distribution system (which are VERY cool, BTW, but don't exist for DTV/HDTV and DD/DTS signals, just NTSC/Stereo), or placing a Replay/Tivo in every room.
Being able to send from one ReplayTV to another in the house is a useful feature. It's part of an attempt to also sell multiple ReplayTVs to people. My understanding was that the shows could be sent over the LAN or Internet. LAN would be quick, a few minutes to grab the show, Internet would take a while.
Sometimes my friends miss shows that I want. Sometimes my IR blaster fails to change the channel and grab the show. I'd love to be able to have someone send it to me so I can watch it.
Ironically, with ReplayTV, I don't spend commercial breaks in the kitchen getting more food. It's probably helped me lose 2-3 lbs., reduce my television watching, and increase my commercial viewing. Sure I only watch really well done and funny commercials, but I used to watch no commercials.
For any industry people watching, grabbing the last advertisements on action shows/movies may help. I got yelled at by the fiancee for over skipping and seeing the resolution of a cliff hanger then going back that we usually end up watching 1-2 commercials to avoid it.
Alex
It is too late. (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally have a hard disk recorder, and since having it I cannot stand to watch live tv, because I now percieve how much of my time is wasted by ads.
My guess is that eventually the entertainment industry is going to have to modify their revenue system, because no one will willing submit to ads again after being free of them.
What is interesting is that the TV industry will has a system allready in place that could be switched to an ad less system. All they would need to do is charge more for cable or satellite service, or something along those lines. They would probably be forced to take an income cut, because people will not be interested in paying very much more for ad less TV then they do for regular TV today.
If media corporations think they have a problem now, wait until hard disk recorders drop below $200....
They are facing a losing battle, just like the music industry.
Re:It is too late. (Score:4, Insightful)
And time shifting (which is what the above is) was ruled legal in the courts, as I recall.
Not if PVRs get banned (Score:2)
Of course you (and I) will go back to regular ad based TV the day our Tivos are made illegal.
Re:It is too late. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think (I don't own one so I'm not sure about this) that you can prevent a software upgrade [sic] from being downloaded and installed unless you never connect to the SonicBlue or Tivo service.
Mike
Ha Ha Ha, fools! (Score:4, Informative)
there are new methods in place already to take care of this, and have been going on for years.
images are placed, products are placed, entire scripts are rewritten to take products into account. it's integrated advertising, and it's where television is going.
you won't be able to watch your tv show w/o getting force fed advertising. now the smart companies will do this so that you don't hate them. but how many you think are going to be smart about it?
lol, i majored in marketing, they are well aware of the limitations of commercials in today's tech society, and are already well on the way to fixing the problem.
one little example. remember sienfeld? those boxes of cereal in his apt. were digitally changed based on the market and who paid the shelf space, and that was years ago. they're better at it now, and you never notice 90% of the time unless you've been trained to watch for it.
and for those saying that they've never bought a single thing due to advertising, you're flat out wrong. you may not realize it, but advertising has measurable, consistant effects on sales in markets. if nothing else it will make you aware of a product that you wouldn't have known about otherwise.
-alcimedes
very little tv (Score:2)
a little more (Score:2)
So how does this help the entertainment suits? (Score:2)
Umm...Replay Hackers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Umm...Replay Hackers? (Score:2, Insightful)
They have 60 days to build a database that reports all clicks, skips, and passes. I.e. in less than two months, they have to construct, test and distribute bug free software.
This I would love to see.
Why bug free? Do you want to explain that the reason that the database shows all of the comercials on all of the 4000 series Replays were the only material passed from one PVR to another, and that the data shows that the viewers were watching the comercials and skipping the shows, was a bug in the software? To a Judge?
If they pull it off, I will be impressed. If they do so without making it possible that even one of the pvrs could be hacked to start reporting the lowest rated shows as the only shows being recorded, I will really be impressed.
-Rusty
I guess we're all thieves (Score:3, Interesting)
So what happens to people who have sent a copy of Six Feet Under to their non HBO subscribing friends? Will they get jail time for this?
The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
Since they already have access to the info it is normal court procedure for the court to request that they preserve it if it may be evidence.
In the article a Sonic Blue manager is complaining "we are being asked to invade the privacy of our customers". No buddy- you are already doing that you are being asked to share the data.
As long as somebody is gathering your info your privacy is being invaded. It doesnt matter what their privacy statement says, because:
a. you can never know if they follow it or not
b. even if they follow it once there is a court order they have to turn it over.
Court orders and search warrants cannot be stopped by privacy statements.
There is no reason why a some tv device has to send information about the viewing habbits of the user. If you want privacy get one that doesnt.
The fact that there isnt one on the market only proves that companies dont really care about consumers that much.
By the way do you guys think that if someone figures out how to port linux on the Xbox it could be programmed to be an open source tv recorder? That would be nice.
Lately having open source devices has been the only way to ensure your privacy.
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2, Informative)
"The plaintiffs asked SonicBlue to turn over information on how individuals use the recording devices. SonicBlue said it does not track that information. The magistrate, who is supervising discovery, ordered the company to write software in the next 60 days that would record every ``click'' from every customer's remote control."
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
I had a small error but i think my points are correct - if they really cared about privacy they wouldnt have that functionality in their device to begin with. Or they would have it but give the owner a choice to turn it off.
The problem is that the owner does not have power over his own damn digital vcr. If he did then it would be much harder for the court to get that information.
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
"SonicBlue stopped collecting data in May 2001..."
SonicBlue is being sued over the 4000 models, which didn't start shipping until November 2001. *This* device never collected any user data. Ever.
But it is able to (Score:2)
Re:But it is able to (Score:2)
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
From the article:
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing the point... but I don't see how this makes that much of a difference. With the earlier products, SonicBlue included firmware (I'm assuming its "firmware") that allowed them to collect data. They saw Tivo get burned over this practice and promptly stopped doing so themselves. Later product lines didn't include software/firmware to perform a function SonicBlue had deemed a PR risk and wouldn't use.
BUT.. they did continue to leave the clause in their EULA and had already proven that it was possible to do with earlier products.
Sure - its outlandish for a court to demand that they develop code to reimplement this invasion of privacy (rather than turn over any existing records from previous data collection). But at the same time, SonicBlue DID collect data in the past.
Re:The problem is not with the tv companies (Score:2)
And why does the industry care? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think about it, at this point they have their money. Nealson has already counted these views, whether or not commercials were skipped via conventional (bathroom) means or electronic means. I find is suspicious that these companies are now asking for this type of information. I could see the various companies who advertise complaining, but they don't seem to be. And if they did the TV industry would say that since taped views don't add to the ratings, those views aren't represented. So either quit bitching or we'll have to count those views in our ratings and raise rates accordingly.
Either way I don't really see how the industries argument carries any weight. This is a game of averages folks and advertisers know this. Plus the industries accounting mechanism rounds for the industry anyway. I just don't see what their problem is.
Re:And why does the industry care? (Score:2)
As for being illegal. ReplayTV only allows a limited number of show 'sends'. Also given the reality of most people's internet bandwidth. ReplayTV will be used for the most part to send shows from a TV in one room to a TV in another (via local lan). Also these limited sends should be no more illegal than having people over to my house to watch HBO. They don't pay for the service, but I'm still allowed to let my friends watch my TV on my dime.
Also since people are watching and sharing these shows off of a hard drive HBO no longer pays the cable companies for distribution over their lines. If anything the cable companies are the real loosers in this whole mess, and the court has already ruled on this issue.
Re:And why does the industry care? (Score:2)
1. Invite friends over to watch X-Files.
2. Tape X-Files for later viewing, with friends, or alone.
3. Tape X-Files for later viewing without commercials.
4. Tape X-Files and watch it at a friends house on his VCR.
5. Tape X-Files for a friend who would have otherwise missed the show, and give them the tape
I believe that courts have upheld this type of fair use. You're allowed to tape stuff off the TV and Radio. You're allowed to consume these tapes in any way you wish, and are allowed to share with family and friends as long as you're not profiting. You are not allowed to share with everyone. I think the friends and family aspect is what SonicBlue is going for. They only let you share a show like 5 times, eliminating the risk of proliferation to the world, while providing a service that allows you to essentially let a friend borrow your CD or tape.
Hi, I'm Em Emalb, and I am a thief (Score:2)
"Attorneys for the studios say they need this information to determine the extent to which the ReplayTV 4000 allows consumers to steal copyrighted movies and television shows."
So, in reality, they automatically assume that everyone who uses this is stealing. Nice, guilt until proven innocent.
Could we please get a judge who says it is not my responsibility to legislate your problems. If you are losing money, change your business model. BTW, I don't believe I have *EVER* EVER...YOU HEAR ME YOU MARKETING F*cktroids? EVER bought something because I saw it on TV.
Judge Eick (Score:5, Informative)
Let the [uscourts.gov]
"Honorable" Charles F. Eick know what you think of his decision:
give him a call at (213)894-5234, fax to(213)894-3335, or write him:
The Honorable Charles F. Eick
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re:Judge Eick (Score:5, Informative)
Might be worth letting your US Senators and Representatives know that something is smelling in the LA District Court....
Re:Judge Eick (Score:4, Informative)
Good point, somebody mod this guy up.
According to this site [fedjudge.org]:
"The current Magistrate Judge system was begun by Congress in 1968 expanding on the 175 year old United States commissioner system. The Magistrate Judges are appointed based upon the recommendations of a citizen's merit screening committee. In 2002, in addition to the 471 full-time Magistrate Judge positions authorized there were 59 part-time judges and 3 combination Clerk of Court/Magistrate Judges who serve four year terms."
Re:Judge Eick (Score:2)
Wanna bet that this "committee" is packed with media flunkies (in LA)?
People, November is coming up. *VOTE* . Make your voices heard. You can rant and rave all you want on
Mixed feelings (Score:2)
Lite judges (Score:2)
An order like this one, one that affects third parties, needs to be kicked up to the district judge level for a more thorough examination. Hopefully some outside party will file a motion to do that. Anyone whose clicks are being recorded is probably an eligible party.
Heisenberg-esque, don't you think? (Score:3, Funny)
So, now a few geeks know that they're being watched more carefully. They can tell other geeks, who will make a fuss, and maybe even the general public will hear about it. Maybe you have to do some protesting or set yourself on fire or something.
Then, everyone who gives a toss will modify their behavior (Skip every commercial or watch only one show over and over. Or set up a robot arm to push the skip button once a second. Get creative.)
Then, when SonicBlue goes back to the court, they can say that the data are obviously flawed, because the rats knew they were being watched and changed their behavior.
SonicBlue must've been keeping data previous to this, anyway, they could compare and prove the behavior changed soon after the ruling.
Also, anybody know how this machine would store all this data? I can't imagine it streams it off to HQ everytime you push a button. Sounds like good hack possibilities to me. "Your honor, viewer #23489A somehow managed to skip 10,000,000 commercials last weekend. I think if you just arrest him the TV industry will be good to go."
making TV shows doesn't have to cost so much (Score:2, Insightful)
Lobotomy Time (Score:3, Funny)
ObHeinlein (Score:5, Interesting)
Entertainment industry has reached critical mass (Score:2)
You can imagine these people getting spoiled the last few years, and then when our disposable income becomes less disposable, they wig out. Has anyone else noticed how prolific our corporations have become at perverting capitalism? Enron, Worldcom, AOL/TW. And those are just the tip of iceberg that we can see.
I see a trend of corporations looking to government to bail them out of jams they created for themselves, and I don't like it. It's funny that some want government regulations (RIAA, MPAA to name a few) and others don't (MSFT) AND they're all wrong!
Re:Entertainment industry has reached critical mas (Score:2)
Actually, the RIAA (and likely MPAA) both want and don't want government regulations depending on the situation.
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA has received awards for her fight against censorship and Government intervention / control over what her member companies can sell. Obviously, this interferes with the revenue stream and can not be allowed.
At the same time, Rosen is a champion of new law and court intervention concerning content found on the Internet. If it circumvents the revenue stream then it can not be allowed.
Sure, its not shocking. But I still find it an interesting observation.
Slipping on the Slope they Made (Score:3, Insightful)
SonicBlue (and Tivo) laid the foundation for this sort of action with their EULA and origional policy of collecting user data ("anonymous" or not). They removed this functionality when, suprise, there was a public backlash. But by then, the damage is done. They have demonstrated the ability for those who would abuse it.
Enter the entertainment industry. Sure, I'm dismayed that a court would force this kind of action. But I'm sad to say I'm not shocked - we've all seen this kind of attitude from the entertainment industry and the legal and political system that seems to favor it, and these kinds of tactics.
But let us not forget that it is the current PVR industry (SonicBlue AND Tivo) who have created the industry standard that allows invasion of consumer rights. It is their short-sightedness that gave the entertainment industry this option to push for in court.
They created the slippery slope and despite their attempts to get off of it, they will now be forced to continue their slide.
Mess with their stats! (Score:5, Funny)
And So It Begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider: A US Federal Court -- not some backwater municipal or state court -- has just ordered a wholesale invasion of citizens' privacy and personal information without a search warrant.
Consider further: This action was ordered, not in the name of "National Security" or "Anti-Terrorist Investigation", not on behalf of the government at all, but on behalf of a monsterously wealthy corporation bleating about "theft" and illusory "lost profits".
It has begun. The last bulwark against tyranny has been swept aside by a sitting Federal Magistrate without the slightest qualm.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer the following admittedly foolish, idealisic counsel:
Close your wallets.
Buy nothing.
See no movies. Rent no videos. Buy no music CDs. Purchase no computer software that isn't Open Source/Free Software (remember, the BSA members are in on this, too).
"But what do I do for entertainment?" Easy. Fire up your Web browser and/or go to your local government building and start digging for incriminating dirt on every elected official you can find. Once you find it, publish it. Read the dirt other people have dug up. Learn as much as you can. Discovering incriminating secrets about other people is endlessly entertaining, especially with that whole "betrayal of the public trust" angle going for it.
And once you've learned everything you possibly can about the people ostensibly representing you... VOTE!
Too many Attorneys General simply refuse to bring malfeasance charges, so relying on criminal prosecution to delete these people won't be very effective. Get out there this upcoming November and vote the bastards out. They are your employees. They are betraying you and selling you out. They are embezzling your earnings and selling your personal secrets to the highest bidder. Fire them. Hurl them out the door so fast that you can see a redshift on their ass.
Apathy about our government is a luxury we can no longer afford. We will only have one or two more shots at this before the courts decide that EULAs really are binding, that your property isn't really yours, that the monopoly of copyright trumps Freedom of Speech (q.v. Keith Henson [freehenson.da.ru]) and Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure (this case). At that point, we all become serfs [everything2.com], and, "Your papers, please," will become a phrase heard all too often in our places of work and our homes.
Schwab
Re:And So It Begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't you be digging up dirt on corporate executives? Lots of people have done things they aren't proud of, and some of it is probably prosecutable. Getting some VPs convicted under 3-strike drug laws could be lots of fun.
I have two words to say to EICKIE.... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm game (Score:2)
Hey man, I would be more then willing to pay for what I watch. I frankly would love the oppotunity!
I wonder what the networks would feel that my contribution would be to offset adverts?
Anyone know, because I would pay it if reasonable.
Business model protection... (Score:3, Insightful)
So it would appear that we again have a case of a company believing that they have a legal right to preserve their business model in perpetuity.
This is, of course, the same thing that the RIAA thinks: they've made lots of money in a certain fashion, therefore they are OBVIOUSLY entitled to the continued existence of that revenue stream.
Pure rubbish.
Because they can? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fishing for a Neilson replacement (Score:2)
I seem to recall more than one failed "dot-com" business model that was set up to spy on users in this way ... emphasis on
failed. Neilson (et al) can't give that kind
of information, this is a marketeer's wet dream.
If the entertainment industry can get someone else to spend a small (or larger) dot-com sized fortune collecting this information, from an unwilling set of customers to be sure ... it's
no wonder they're trying to do so.
That's what's really going on here: not just a massive invasion of privacy, unjustified by even a (so-called) PATRIOT act level terrorist threat. Not just trying to scare customers away from PVR vendors on a wholesale basis, while undermining the future growth of the market.
But also finding someone else to pay for a level of market information collection that would otherwise be impossible to collect, since the financials don't pass a first level smell test and customers would never willingly commit to that level of surveillance.
Get your own lawyer! (Score:2)
File for an injunction based on the Cable Act of '84. IANAL but could you not get someone that is to draft a 'form' injunction request(Call in the EFF?)? Send a few thousand of these to the magistrate to bolster SB case. Call it a legal DDoS. At worst you should be able to win the ability to opt-out and at best you will stop the whole deal.
SD
Don't wait to get screwed, fight back!
SonicBlue can now counter-sue (Score:4, Insightful)
They have to develop and deploy new software too! (Score:5, Informative)
(1) take the steps necessary to use their broadband connections with ReplayTV 4000 customers to gather all available information about how users of the ReplayTV employ the devices, including all available information about what works are copied, stored, viewed with commercials omitted, or distributed to third parties with the ReplayTV 4000, when each of those events took place, and the like;
(2) implement Defendants' offer to collect available data from a second source -- the MyReplayTV.com web site -- about how users of the ReplayTV employ the devices, but for all time periods for which that data can be collected, rather than just for a short period;
(3) provide the foregoing data to Plaintiffs in a readily-understandable electronic format and provide any technical assistance that may be necessary for Plaintiffs to review the data;
(4) provide Plaintiffs with all documents about Defendants' consideration of what data to gather or not to gather about their customers' uses of the ReplayTV 4000; and
(5) provide Plaintiffs with any other documents (such as emails or logs) reflecting what works have been copied with the ReplayTV 4000 and how those works have been stored, viewed, or distributed.
Now who gets all of this data? The plaintiffs in the case against SonicBLUE (the makers of the ReplayTV 4000). Roughly, Time Warner, HBO, Warner Brothers, TBS, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, WB TV, MGM Studios, Orion Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Fox Broadcasting, Paramount Pictures, Disney, NBC, Showtime, United Paramount Network, ABC, Viacom, CBS, Columbia Pictures, Columbia TV, and Tristar. The plaintiffs are also ordered to pay 3/4 of the cost of gathering the data.
Come on. Our courts have no business ordering a company to spy on its own customers just because big media wants to put the company out of business. We at the Privacy Foundation [privacyfoundation.org] saw a lot of consumer outrage after we released our report [privacyfoundation.org] about TiVo's privacy disclosure and practices. TiVo did a pretty good job of responding to the situation; they spent a lot of time with the press, and they wrote a white paper explaining what had happened. (We still have some gripes about their system, but that's another story.) The point is that companies are very sensitive about tweaking their customers' privacy, because they know customers don't have much patience for it. So when the court orders a company to spy on their customers, it's basically a punitive act. The customers will revolt and get mad at everyone. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the discovery of evidence phase of a lawsuit isn't supposed to be punitive.
In this case it's worse than just a privacy squabble. Either the court doesn't understand or the court doesn't believe ReplayTV's repeated explanation that they simply don't have the information demanded by this order. See, in April 2001 some months after our TiVo report came out, I showed a ReplayTV exec my traces that proved that their current model also collected some type of viewing information. This scared them, and in May 2001 - before the ReplayTV 4000 existed - they disabled the collection function, since they had never used the data for anything. This is what they told me, and this is what they've sworn to the court in testimony.
Now the ReplayTV 4000 is a different product than the one I investigated, and ReplayTV has said that they never reenabled the old tracking code, nor did they update it to make it monitor the newer features - like automatically skipping commercials and sending recordings to other ReplayTV 4000 units. But that's precisely the type of data that the plaintiffs are demanding to see in this case!
So what we have is a court ordering SonicBLUE to prepare a new software release that implements new spying features, and then ordering them to force it upon all of their customers, out of fairness to Big Media in their case against them. Considering that SonicBLUE has probably updated their customers' software only a few times ever, this is like ordering Microsoft to create, distribute, and maintain a new version of Outlook that checks to see if any of its users are sending MP3s as attachments!
I guess this is a sneak preview of the type of consumer broadband "protection" we can look forward to in the very near future.
What happens next: SonicBLUE is planning to file papers with the overseeing judge in U.S. District court objecting to this order. If that doesn't go their way, then I guess they'll be working on a new software release.
David Martin
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~dm [bu.edu]
We could still be riding in horse buggies (Score:2)
No, not quite.
Look, this whole thing is pissing me off to no end. I pay for satellite TV. What I do with those TV signals once their decoded IN MY OWN HOUSE is my own damn business. If I want to capture every frame on my computer, print them out, and piss on them... I can do that. If I want to put them on video tape, toss the tapes into a bonfire, and dance around it chanting anti-Disney phrases, fine. Skip commercials? Fine. Watch commercials again and again. Fine.
How are the capabilities of a ReplayTV unit at all different from what I can do with a VCR, a video tape, and the US Mail? What are they going to do? Sue VCR makers out of existance? Oh wait, they already tried that!
-S
no right to business model success (Score:4, Interesting)
It is patently unfair to sue someone because they make a product that is _too useful_ (such as a PVR, mp3 player, file sharing program, etc.).
The law is not there to guarantee the viability of a business model. If advertising fails, then use something else (such as product placement), but do not seek to destroy or block technology that gives the users more power. If I were to invent a car that ran on cold fusion, the oil companies would not have a legal case against me, even if I end up destroying their business model.
Of course, this has not kept companies from trying to save their business model in the past. A good example of this is the "Red Flag" laws that were passed in the 1860s to block the automobile industry:
(taken from http://www.dana.com/corporate/history/history3.ht
Neither example is "anonymous" (Score:2)
As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am. (That's also why I pay with cash, etc.)
But when they want me to fill out a form, then it's not anonymous. It may be pseudonymous (if I use a bogus name and address), but that's not the same thing as anonymous.
As for aggregate data, that's what the stores collect when they ask you for your ZIP code and cross-correlate purchases, ZIP code and store location. It would be the number of people in a square mile (or greater) watching HBO at 10 PM on Sunday night. It's not something tied to your individual PVR.
Re:Neither example is "anonymous" (Score:2)
As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am.
And how old you are, and what sex you are, etc. Also, how do you propose they get people to keep the cards in their wallet rather than throwing them away and grabbing a new one next time?
my solution (Score:2)
so no they are tracking the speding habits of a 23 year-old white guy and a middle aged black woman.
Re:Can't they plead the Fifth? (Score:2)
It's a civil case. The right to refuse to self-incriminate is only available during criminal proceedings.
Schwab
Re:Redundant (Score:3, Funny)
thanks for clarifying that my post was redundant...hopefully the title helped
a little humor, don't get too excited!
now, it would be ironic if this post here gets modded as off-topic. that would make my day.
yours,
Em Emalb
Re:blank ?? (Score:2)
Thats what they want you to do... (Score:2)
D