Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Sonicblue Wins Stay of Spying Order 195

Posted by michael from the watching-us-watching-them dept.
ebonkyre writes "According to this article, federal Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has stayed the order which would require SONICBlue to begin recording users viewing habits and reporting them to the MPAA, et al. It has been stayed until June 3rd, at which time the court is to review SB's motion to throw out the order entirely." EPIC has filed a brief supporting Sonicblue's position. EPIC's argument (starting on page 5 of the PDF) neatly summarizes why this order should never have been given.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sonicblue Wins Stay of Spying Order More

Sonicblue Wins Stay of Spying Order

Comments Filter:

  • spying? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by coronaride ( 222264 )
    ok, I'm trying to find out why a court WOULD order that a company like SONICBlue to record viewing habits for distribution to other media companies..does anyone know the court's reasoning behind this?
    • I agree, is like ordering the defendant to gather evidence for the prosecution.

    • Discovery (Score:2, Insightful)

      by phriedom ( 561200 )
      Well, I guess the first judge ignored the fact that there were actual people involved here who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead she figured that these "records" were just ordinary discovery. Glad to see that another judge at least wants to think about it for a while.
    • I think it has mostly to do with the fact that SonicBlue's product(s) allow users to "share" programs using a broadband connection. I can see how that might pi$$ some content providers off.

      I'm ALL for fair use, of course.
    • 1) The Federal Magistrate who issued the order is being bribed by the plaintiffs.

      OR

      2) The Federal Magistrate is terminally stupid.

  • There is no way (Score:3, Funny)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:34PM (#3526039) Homepage Journal
    they will be able to push this thing through. Can you imagine the repercussions? Every time you think someone is using a product in a way that is illegal you require the manufacturer to track what people do w/that product.

    Liquor companies should start tracking what happens w/their product.

    Automotive manufacturers the same, and well anybody who pretty much makes anything. Yes, very smart.

    .
    • word up man, you're totally right, this muddy water between products that are tangible vs virtual the money worshippers have been trying to exploit is starting to appear far passed the realm of ridiculous... and more into the zone of STFU. they better watch it before i drag their butts into the territory of the thunderdome... see how the lardos like it when i whip out my Mad Max musical stylie and start blowing that whistle.

      ahem. anywhey.
      whoever said that legal systems, much less the american legal system was smart? :P

    • Well, there kind of is a way on some things... Wasn't there something here just the other day about how that publishing companies were going to track books throughout their lifetimes? And they do sort of track automobiles... through the VIN numbers. Admittedly the manufacturers don't always know where the cars are, but in states like IL, where insurance is mandatory, the insurers know where the cars are...

      Thank goodness they don't track alcohol sales though... although I used to be paranoid they did back when I was too young to drink. I wouldn't use a credit card to purchase the stuff for fear that someone was tracking it. I really wonder if it would have mattered.

    • Ooops ... beter start hiding my identity when i'm buying porn^H^H^H^Hnature documentaries videotapes.

  • The MPAA and its excesses (Score:3, Interesting)

    by littlerubberfeet ( 453565 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:37PM (#3526068)
    Now, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Artists association? It seems as if it is all encompassing....Now perhaps we should start to encourage cinemetographers and studios to revoke Their membership. Then It would begin to lack power. All it takes is one big company to start it, then others will follow. Bah! oh well, it will never happen.

    Now, the way I see it, its a direct violation of my privacy rights to have someone poking through my viewing habits. Its like someone going through my mail. It just shouldn't happen. Theoretical course of events: They begin tracking viewing habits. The "Uncaring Public" goes along. The rest of us either disable the tracking mechanism, or we dump the device entirely. Sonic Blue loses buisness, and the MPAA still can't tell what we, the 'worst offenders' are doing. Lose lose situation for MPAA and Sonic Blue.

  • Good Analogies (Score:5, Informative)

    by geoffsmith ( 161376 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:40PM (#3526088) Homepage
    SONICBlue's legal doc makes some good analogies:

    In a personal injury lawsuit, it is relevant to kknow whether a plaintiff who claimed to be wheelchair-bound in fact left his chair; yet, one would be hardpressed to find a discovery ruling in which a judge ordered a plaintiff to place an electronic sensor in his chair seat. In a defamation lawsuit, it would be helpful to know if in fact the defamatory comment had a wide circulation among plaintiff's neighbors; yet, it is unfathomable to think that a court would order a microphone to be place in the local pub.

    The point I think they are trying to make is that the only reason this seems even slightly reasonable (and the above examples do not) is because it affects so many people that it becomes a statistic, and the way in which those people's privacy is violated is complicated enough that it is easy to gloss over the fact that it is a severe intrusion into the living rooms of SONICBlue's customers!

    This ruling is sickening, and I think it seriously hints at some money changing hands between the plaintiff's and the powers that be. This ruling unquestionably violates the rights of SONICBlue and its customers, and it is without legal precedent.

    Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]

    • Re:Good Analogies (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zurab ( 188064 )
      The point I think they are trying to make is that the only reason this seems even slightly reasonable (and the above examples do not) is because it affects so many people that it becomes a statistic, and the way in which those people's privacy is violated is complicated enough that it is easy to gloss over the fact that it is a severe intrusion into the living rooms of SONICBlue's customers!

      Of course, SonicBlue's problem being that they explicitly put the clause in the service agreement allowing them to collect such information from the consumer. Which is what TiVo did also. Now, I do not believe it has come up whether this clause in itself would be legal and enforceable; but I do not see why not. Usage info is being tracked from variety devices and software legally.

      Listening to an EFF representative on CNet radio, and reading this brief, I wouldn't think this was a great argument to reverse the original ruling. This brief goes way too much into how privacy would be violated and presents not so good analogies. Of course MPAA is going to respond by arguing SonicBlue has perfectly legal right to collect such info (based on the clause in their agreement).

      IMHO, what they should have argued more than anything else, is that in the discovery process plaintiffs have no right to demand extra, non-existent information from the defendants or ask them to create such data, and presented more and more rulings backing this argument. But then again, IANAL.
      • Exactly, also I believe there is such a thing as the 5th amendment. The judge is asking SonicBlue to give up info that would incriminate them.
        • That doesn't apply in civil suits iirc, only in criminal ones.
          • So then can a judge apply a criminal charge of contempt if they don't comply. If so, couldn't a civil suit be filled along side a criminal one, in order to get evidence???
            • The problem I have with that is that I, as a ReplayTV owner, am not specifically named as a party in the case. I refuse to cede my right to privacy as a member of a class. What's next, certain "classes" of citizens are ordered to wear a special symbol so that the court can gather "anonymous" but uniquely identifiable data "in case" they are found guilty of a crime?

              Further, SonicBlue may state in their documentation that they "reserve the right to collect" such information, but I cannot be coerced to cede my right to privacy through contract. They can't reserve the right to my information, because that right is not theirs in the first place, and _I_ have already reserved it.

              It's a provision of their "clickthrough" that they are more than welcome to attempt to get enforced in court. I'd be happy to add to the (already existant) legal prescident that click through "contracts" are not enforcable where they are unreasonable and contradictory to Constitutional rights.

              Basically, the MPAA et al can kiss my ass. They want information about how I use MY property, they can damn well get a court order that names me specifically as a defendant (for which they'd need some proof to support the request), otherwise they can fuck off.

  • A question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by YourFavoriteBandSux ( 574395 )
    This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

    I mean, can't you see it? Kelsey Grammar doing a 30-second spot, explaining how skipping commercials is really a crime, and explaining how ads pay for TV programming, et cetera? After all, it would be pretty cheap and easy to launch for them to launch such a campaign.

    I believe I know why they wouldn't dare do such a thing. Because the very concept that somehow manipulating content that comes into your home is a form of theft flies in the face of common sense. That's why these bastards are taking their fight to the courts, where common sense is almost a liability. But I'm glad to see some sense has come back into the courts with the latest ruling.

    • Re:A question (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wikkid007 ( 562355 )
      I agree that the concept of such commercials seems rediculous, but I also think that public knowledge about the capabilities of new PVRs is really very limited at this point in time... a television commercial pointing out that there are people out there who don't have to watch commercials! One 30 second prime time spot would sell thousands of ReplayTVs! I mean, I only know about PVRs because I'm a geek and the technology behind it, as well as the resulting court case, is interesting to me. People who like to hang out in the home electronics department while their family/spouse/friends shop -- know about PVRs. People who hang out on Slashdot know about PVRs. And people who really like their television, or have really busy schedules, know about them too. And right now, this is the realistic market for such a device -- techies and tv-lovers. If the television industry stepped outside of the courtroom and into the living room with their concerns, suddenly the general public would be much more aware of these products and their capabilities would be that much more appealing.
      • Exactly.
        This is where i think Metallica shot themselves in the foot.
        Nobody I knew (except for geeks) even heard about downloading music (except for 3 second .wav clips) in MP3 format, let alone Napster. Then Metallica goes along and sues Napster, and the napster user base increased exponentially almost overnight. If they would have just kept there mouth shut, only a very small percentage of the population would have actually been swapping music on P2P apps.

      • Re:A question (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:54PM (#3526468)
        > If the television industry stepped outside of the courtroom and into the living room with their concerns, suddenly the general public would be much more aware of these products and their capabilities would be that much more appealing.

        Which is what bugs me about this.

        The court shouldn't even be fucking involved in this. It's legal to piss while you watch TV. It's legal to tape a show to an analog VCR and fast-forward through the commercials. There's no law that says that VCR's can only fast-forward at a certain rate - just an engineering problem with spinning a shaft and winding a spool of magnetic tape. A VCR with extremely powerful motors (and really strong tape :-) could do this and nobody would bat an eye.

        The difference between the VCR and PVR is that a VCR engineered to do that would cost thousands, and the tape, hundreds. The PVR makers have merely built a better ad-skipping mousetrap, by swapping analog stretchy tape for bits on a disk and a CPU to decode them.

        So how the fuck are the Content Cartel able to browbeat judges into thinking that 30-second skip is somehow worthy of a lawsuit? (Yes, I know that's not the thrust of this suit, but with that fucknozzle from AOL/TW calling PVR users "thieves", we know it's coming). Why the hell aren't such suits immediately recognized as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participations) and thrown out?

        All the PVR industry needs to do to achieve total world domination(tm) is run one 30-second spot, something like this:

        [Guy comes up wearing an ugly suit, looking totally cheezy]

        "Hi. This is Ron Popeil (or Earl Scheib, or Ed McMahon, or any other "guy whose career is now over and he's only famous for his obnoxious commercials"). Tivo (or ReplayTV) are paying me a lot of money to say this. If you buy a Tivo or ReplayTV, not only can you pause live TV, but you will never have to see this commercial, or any other commercial again!


        Presto! Instant consumer adoption - it gives the consumer what he wants - the ability to watch a 2-hour broadcast of a movie in 90 minutes. (The ability to watch a whole baseball game in 20 minutes ;-)

        The consumer wants this, but they can't imagine that it's possible. Your job is to show them that it's not only possible, but it's here, and available for the low, low price of $10/month.

        Will you get sued? Probably. But you're getting sued by these bastards anyways. Why not get the public on your side now, before the Content Cartel gets Congress to pass a law banning 30-second-skip or other ad-skipipng features in PVRs? (Or a judge bans your product, which is what the Cartel is trying to have done now?)

        The Cartel can get away with it because Joe Sixpack doesn't know he can skip commercials.

        I know this is horribly old-fashioned, but lots of people have made assloads of money by simply making the consumer aware of a need they didn't know they had ("I hate the 3-4 minute ad breaks") and that you have a product that meets that need ("You mean I don't have to watch commericals if I buy your box?").

        When Joe Sixpack realizes he can skip commercials, it'll be too late. Just like Sony vs. Betamax - once Joe Sixpack found out how valuable time-shifting was, no court, (and just as importanly, no Congresscritters), will dare take it away from him.

        Why work with the broadcasters? You guys sell hardware and subscription-based software. I can't see any legal reason why 30-second skip is any more "illegal" than fast-forwarding on a VCR, or channel-surfing during the commercials. FUCK the broadcasters. You don't need them.

    • Re:A question (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hans Lehmann ( 571625 )
      This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

      Why? Because every viewer that hasn't heard about ReplayTV will think "You mean I can get a box that lets me skip commercials? Where do I sign up?"
      • I agree with you. IMHO, the general public's ignorance of these devices is the only thing keeping the TV industry's ad-based business model afloat. That and maybe the price. But as the price and ignorance subside, the Napsterization of TV is all but inevitable. Agree?

      • Re:A question (Score:4, Funny)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:59PM (#3526493)
        > every viewer that hasn't heard about ReplayTV will think "You mean I can get a box that lets me skip commercials? Where do I sign up?"

        Actually, the best ad wouldn't be the "Find an annoying guy to talk about the product" one I mentioned a few minutes ago.

        The best ad would cost $20 to produce:

        30 seconds of a 1000-hz tone at loud volume, and in big block letters:

        "If you owned a PVR, you could press 'skip ad' and never have to sit through another annoying ad again."

        • ROTFLMAO!

          I don't remember if it was Tivo or Replay that ran the ad parodies, but they were a little counterproductive. Ads for an ad-skipping device that were actually worth watching. ;)

    • I mean, can't you see it? Kelsey Grammar doing a 30-second spot, explaining how skipping commercials is really a crime, and explaining how ads pay for TV programming, et cetera? After all, it would be pretty cheap and easy to launch for them to launch such a campaign.

      Maybe he already did, but we just missed it because we skipped the commercials!

      :-D
    • They'd do it in a second if they could get the FCC to count these as PSAs.
  • ...that the court didn't admit that all of the stern comments from /. caused them to rule in this way.
  • Santa Clara, California-based SONICblue said federal Judge Florence-Marie Cooper halted the April 26 order in which a federal court ordered SONICblue to install tracking software on ReplayTV and report viewing results to movie and TV companies.

    Finally, a judge who cannot be bought. I wonder how we can get more of these RIAA financed decisions sent over to her for review??

    • Re:Finally... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's possible that either a) the check hasn't cleared or b) it wasn't enough.
  • If people who originally purchased Replay TV bought it with the expectation that it would not track their viewing habits, aren't they entitled to have the product function in the same manner in which they purchased it? Does the fact that this PVR is required to track you and others don't (possibly resulting in a consumer exodus to the competition) mean that this court order would affect Sonic Blue's profitability? Would Disney, et. al. then use this information to send threatening cease-and-decist letters to indivdual users who are "stealing" their programming?

  • Kellner (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DeLabarre ( 236800 )
    They quoted Jamie Kellner's outrageous "theft" accusation in a footnote. That's great! Let's see the MPAA try to disown THAT...

    • favroite Kellner quote (Score:4, Funny)

      by martissimo ( 515886 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:38PM (#3526379)
      in reference to his attitude about people who skip ads during shows...

      CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

      JK: I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom

      jeez how reasonable of him, there is a "certain" tolerance for allowing natural bodily functions by TV viewers, but im guessing that us beer drinkers and people with weak bladders should probably stop watching, because such willy-nilly use of the bathroom is probably thievery ;)

      full interview here [inside.com] btw

  • around and around (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:48PM (#3526139) Journal

    You may think this is a no-brainer, but if the viable source of income for TV producers is to "promise" a certain number of eyes watch your commercials, thats how they are priced. Otherwise, you'd be paying-per-channel of cable TV, which again is possibly a good idea...

    With the corporations soon to be expecting a discount based on the market share/demogrpahic of owners of SB or Tivo-like devices, we'll see the budgets of TV constrained from their traditional sources. Of course, other sources will be built (look out for a tax bill).

    So, the bottom line is the dollars are expeced out of the consumer's pockets somehow. If the ad rates drop and TV quality follow suit, will we watch less TV? I doubt it, although I hope so. If a tax-proposal fails for devices that manipulated recorded video, then perhaps we'll see everything sold through cable at higher rates. So, the cable bill goes up.

    This will undoubtedly push the distribution faster into free methods: PTP video. But then again, this may positively impact broadband sales. Perhaps cable companies again here will reap the rewards (Telecomm cannot compete since there is too much infighting about open markets and DSL just cannot cut it long term).

    So the eyes have it. Shows can be compressed to a cheap size (still huge by today's file sizes) and passed around. When the bandwidth is sold with an odometer-like billing model, we'll be here again, discussing the neighborhood radio networks and other private options.

    Oh the drama.

    signal
    • . If the ad rates drop and TV quality follow suit,

      Yeah, that's not a long drop (t.v. quality). I know watching the most eligible bachelors in Alaska compete for a bride is riveting t.v. but I admit I am not too enamoured by what is offered up by the networks.

      I wish they would go to a pay format because then I would stop watching altogether and have more productive time in my day. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Please help me by making television too expensive.


      • A message from the other side: Life is fun and you won't miss it. Although I am the only one in the bar still giggling about the silly commercials that everyone else is bored of.

        Killing The TV is just a slogan anymore. 12 years and going strong.

    • No one promised the studios a rose garden (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:36PM (#3526360)
      Just because their business model is for advertisers to pay for production in return for also broadcasting ads is no reason to enshrine that business model forever. If it is no longer viable, then they should find a new business model or go out of business.

      Are we supposed to weep for vaudeville tap dancers and plate jugglers because radio and TV ran their business model into the ground?

      How about street sweepers -- should we guarantee them a job even though the automobile reduced the amount of horseshit on the roads?

      • And just what business model do you think will replace it?

        Here's a hint: Big Hollywood will like it more than you.

        • Ok Time's Up!

          The business model to expect is The Show Is The Commercial...The Commercial Is The Show.

          Imagine if advertisers simply paid for the Friends cast to drink Coke, eat Wheaties and wear Gap jeans. Logos everywhere...storylines about brands by name.

          It's already been done. Shift it to moralizing and you have the anti-drug scandal that broke last year about plot line written just this way.

          If you don't want to watch a commercial, turn your TV off.

          • Imagine if advertisers simply paid for the Friends cast to drink Coke, eat Wheaties and wear Gap jeans. Logos everywhere...storylines about brands by name.

            Problem with product placement is that it can be highly limiting. Viewers certainly will notice if a New York cab company suddenly appears in Sunnydale. Or question how so many 21st century US brandnames could survive a major war in order to get on the starship Enterprise. Usually such product placement is a little more subtle.
            Consider also what would happen if every Star Trek ship was plastered in Pan Am and Enron logos...

      • Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @06:19PM (#3526582) Homepage
        Media conglomerates have somehow gotten this assinine notion that having people view their commercials is some sort of "entitlement". They infact have NO RIGHT to any of our eyeballs. If they want our viewership, they damn well better earn it. The decreasing quality of television advertisements is the real problem here. Media conglomerates are merely using Replay as a scapegoat.

        Much like the Music industry, they want to use technology as a club to prevent the market from forcing change.

        Instead of suing Replay, they should be paying them to collect real performance statistics on commercials. Broadcasters should be more interested in figuring out how to get people to voluntarily watch more commercials. Broadcasters should be trying to avoid showing commercials that send people running to the bathroom.

        • If they want our viewership, they damn well better earn it.

          While I agree with your points about commercials sucking, networks make money by either having commercials, or having people pay for content (HBO, etc). Therefore, their providing to you, for free, television shows is in return for your eyeballs come commercialtime. Getting up and going elsewhere, that's fine. Fastforwarding, I'm ok with. Reading a book or magazine, sure, but intentionally, deliberately, blatantly skipping over commercials removes the only source of income the networks have to fund these commercials. If advertisers say 'we're not going to pay as much because people aren't watching', then less shows get produced, and the quality goes down.

          That being said, I don't think the quality can go down any further. Most TV I watch is CBS (Survivor, Amazing Race, CSI), HBO (Sopranos and Sex in the City, which I would watch if I had a PVR), Canadian (This Hour, Lexx, and the news), or has already been paid for (M*A*S*H). There are a few exceptions, but nothing I watch regularly. Maybe if the networks didn't throw money away on crap like they do (VIP? Come on...) it wouldn't be an issue, but people don't want quality TV, they want to rot their brains, and if you want to rot your brain too, you have to pay the toll.

          --Dan
    • You can't skip the ads if the ads are smoothly integrated with the shows. And that would mean more of the showtime at least being used for the show and its characters, even if there were some obvious product placements in it.

      The down side is that the shows then become less attractive in syndication, where the placed products could be in conflict with new ads introduced, and the new ads could be skipped. But then with digital technology, this stuff could be morphed, the brand of beer or whatever could easily change.

      So that's what will happen.
      ___
    • Otherwise, you'd be paying-per-channel of cable TV...

      Obviously it would depend on price per channel, but I know that I have always wished I could select my channels a la carte... I only watch about 5 channels but to get them all I have to pay for 30 or so. If I could just have Discovery without having to pay for "Faith and Vision", or whatever that f'd up channel with all the evangelists is, I'd be a much happier person... although sometimes those evangalist types are good for a laugh.

  • Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cymraeg ( 578870 ) <sean.full@vu> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:49PM (#3526148)

    Among features the studios and networks object to are the ability to skip commercials and a broadband connection that allows users to exchange recorded programs with others.

    PBS has been airing quality television programs for many years commercial-free by asking viewers to contribute their financial support. This and the ability to hit the mute/channel change button on my remote allow me to watch TV stations commercial-free.

    So what's next, suing TV manufacturers to force them to start making TV remotes without mute buttons and channel changing capabilities? God forbid I excercise my own free will and look for an alternative.

    Further, what's to prevent me from recording a show to VHS, taking it to a friend's house, and then watching it again? This is a method of sharing. It's just not as convenient for me to do so. Add to this the term "digital" or "broadband" and suddenly all the lawyers in the room come alive as programmed and start using acronyms like DMCA.

    I think the truth is that companies like Disney realize that someone else beat them to the technology, they realized what an opportunity they missed (to make more money), and they're now trying to catch up by miring the industry in legal battles.

    Regardless of what Disney and their ilk think, I decide whether or not they are successful... Unfortunately, I (and most /. readers) am in the minority of people who actually give a rat's ass and vote with their wallet.

    Yeah yeah, I know. Flamebait.
    --

    • They ask viewers to donate, but that's just to keep the facilities on the air (mostly). I.e. paying workers salaries, broadcast liscence, equipemnt charges, rentals, power etc. The majority of funding for programs comes from corporate donations which is money received through traditional advertising mechanisms. Heck, even the private viewer donations are money earned most likely from working in the commercial sector.

      As usual, "free" is only free in small scale due to support of commercial interests. A suitable balance must be struck.

      • Exactly. Thanks for the follow up.

        And it's companies like these that I support. Unfortunately it's killing me having to buy the entire line of Delta, Porter-Cable, and Stanley hand and power tools.

      • Re:A point about PBS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fat Casper ( 260409 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:34PM (#3526350) Homepage
        The majority of funding for programs comes from corporate donations which is money received through traditional advertising mechanisms.

        And the majority of that traditional advertising is a simple "this program was made possible by a grant from the XYZ Corporation." It isn't in your face, it doesn't annoy anyone and doesn't turn an hour show into 35-40 minutes worth of crap. It does, however, fund programming and create a brand association. ABC Corp. interrupts my shows with shitty ads. XYZ Corp. funded that Nova episode.

        The few things I do watch aren't on PBS, though. I'll buy a PVR when it all gets sorted out and that'll be fun.

        • Why wait to get the PVR? They're great little devices now. Who knows how great they'll be in the future.

          Most of the shows I watch have horrible commercials. Some of them, they're so bad and so uncared for that the color even drops out of them - FX I'm talking about you - and they're so repetative. How many times do I have to watch an ad about painted silver dollars or penis "enhancement" products before I should be able to decide I'm not interested? Apparently the anti-PVR crowd thinks that I'll eventually buy in. As if that would stop the problem. :)
          • Why wait to get the PVR? They're great little devices now.

            Because want one that'll get info from my guide channel, not one that's crippleware to force you into subscriptionware that the fscking illiterate courts will turn into spyware. I also want to tape off of it so I can archive things on an old fashioned shelf.

            I haven't done any research as such, but everything I've heard of has to phone home. I don't want a lifetime subscription- I want an appliance. Any suggestions? Seriously- please.

        • And the majority of that traditional advertising is a simple "this program was made possible by a grant from the XYZ Corporation." It isn't in your face, it doesn't annoy anyone and doesn't turn an hour show into 35-40 minutes worth of crap.

          The BBC is currently showing a US-made television drama called '24', shown in 24 episodes each of which supposedly encapsulates an hour of the day. This is screamingly announced as 'real time television', but each episode, as screened by the BBC, lasts only 45 minutes... so presumably you guys watched one minute of advertising for every three minutes of content. No wonder you have attention deficits!

          • The BBC is currently showing a US-made television drama called '24', shown in 24 episodes each of which supposedly encapsulates an hour of the day. This is screamingly announced as 'real time television', but each episode, as screened by the BBC, lasts only 45 minutes... so presumably you guys watched one minute of advertising for every three minutes of content.

            In US television terms "one hour" equates to around 43 minutes. (With one notable exception.) AFAIK this hasn't changed much in a long time.

    • Re:Bah! (Score:5, Informative)

      by ftobin ( 48814 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:46PM (#3526419) Homepage

      The following quote best exemplifies Disney's stance. The Future of Ideas, by Lawrence Lessig:

      In the early 1970's, RCA was experimenting with a new technology for distributing film on magnetic tape--what we would come to call video. Researchers were keen not only to find a technology that could reproduce firm with high fidelity, they were also keen to find a way to control the use of the technology. Their aim was a technology that could control the use of firm distributed on video, so that the owner of the firm might maximize its return from the distribution.

      The technology eventually chosen was relatively simple. A video would play once, and when finished, the firm would lock into place. If a renter of the video wanted to play the video again, he or shee would have to return the video to the store and have the tape unlocked. In this way, the owner of the firm could assure that it was being compensated for every use of the copyrighted material.

      RCA presented this technology to the Disney Corporation in the early 1970's. In a room with just five of the senior executives from Disney, a young RCA executive, Pat Feely, demonstrated RCA's device. The executives were horrified. They would "never,", Feely reports their waying, permit their content to be distributed in this form. For the content, however clever the self-locking tape player was, was still insufficiently controlled. "How could they know,", a Disney executive asked Feely, "how many people are going to be sitting there watching" a film? "What's to stop someone else coming in and watching it for free?".

      If that doesn't make you shudder, I don't know what will.

    • Re:Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fiber_halo ( 307531 ) <fiber_halo@QUOTEyahoo.com minus punct> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:51PM (#3526444)

      The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching. I would gladly sit through a few minutes of commercials if they were entertaining or informative.

      Unfortunately, most commercials are stupid and insulting.

      • The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching. I would gladly sit through a few minutes of commercials if they were entertaining or informative.
        Where I live, the most popular cinematographic event of the year is the presentation of the Lion awards of the Venice commercial festival. Plenty of people are glad to queue for hours, then plunk down plenty of money simply to watch 2 solid hours of superbly slick commercials from all over the world.

        And I never saw any of those commercials on TV!!!

      • Re:Bah! (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching.

        Also avoid repeating them too often. Other possibilities would be commercials which solicit viewer input (but these are obviously not much use if not watched "live".)
      • I hate to even post this, since it may some day be brought up in a court case (an actual quote from a PVR user!). I use a TiVo at home. I go through commercials at 30x (60x has too much over-correction). If they were great or terrible, I'll never know. Sometimes I see the logo of the product being advertised, but that's it. The commercial may be funny or interesting, but I'll never know.

        ReplayTV users are even further away. They never even see the commercials, not even at 60x. They'll never know if commercial quality improves.
    • First of all, I just have to say it: I've seen a few shows on PBS that were interrupted by telethon-like requests for financial contributions. Okay, maybe that's the exception rather than the rule, but still...

      The main point I want to make is that there really isn't that much difference between DVR's and VCR's as far as what you can do with them. The implementation may be different, but I can still record shows for later viewing, skip through commercials (though not as fast), take a tape over to a friend's, or make copies. And there's nothing wrong with that (as long as it's for personal use). In fact, allowing viewers to record TV shows can actually increase a station's audience, because otherwise we'd have to choose between two or more shows that share the same time slot, or choose whether to watch TV at all if we have something more important to do at that time. So why raise such a fuss over a new technology to do the same thing viewers have already been doing for years?

  • I'm glad this ridiculous ruling was objected to and stayed (for now), but it touches on a bigger problem: PVR companies could shield their customers from this type of abuse by simply not implementing a way to track viewing habits. Just make a PVR that doesn't track anything but software diagnostics. Then advertise it as a feature: "we won't spy on your viewing habits like other PVR companies!"


    Of course, an unscrupulous PVR company could make that claim, get someone like TrustE to back it up, then put a bunch of fine print in that basically exempts them from it.

    • Re:Let this be a lesson... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kabir ( 35200 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:26PM (#3526311)
      That's essentially what SonicBLUE did. If you read through the brief there's a section which details the fact that SonicBLUE decided not to implement data gathering facilities due to cost and consumer reaction concerns.

      The fact that they didn't implement those data gathering methodologies is what allows them to stop the discovery proceedings like this. One of the main points of the brief is that Civil discovery rules do not allow surveilence as a means of obtaining prospective evidence. If SonicBLUE already had the data it would be a cinch for the plaintiffs to get their hands on it. That's what discovery is. But since they don't actually have the data they are arguing (correctly, IMHO) that they can not be compelled to gather the data.

  • You've got to tell them! (Score:3, Funny)

    by albeit unknown ( 136964 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:55PM (#3526179)
    SonicBlue is made out of people!
  • That was the most interesting legal brief I've ever read. Wait, check that, that was the only legal brief I've ever read. Are they all that interesting?

    I do hope that this ruling is overturned. The way courts have been ruling lately on copyright law terrifies me. Are these judges not citizens? Do they not see how this is going to effect them? Are they all bought? sigh......

  • Pointer to SonicBlue references (Score:3, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:01PM (#3526211) Homepage Journal
    Just a quick pointer:

    There's a good index of various references at

    http://cs-www.bu.edu/~dm/pubs/replaytv.html [bu.edu]

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • Re:Pointer to SonicBlue references (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Another sonicblue ref: BBB report [hurdmanivr.com]. It is very difficult to get an unsatisfactory rating with the BBB - a rating usually reserved for questionable businesses (read: scam).

  • Oh god no!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by powerlinekid ( 442532 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:06PM (#3526236)
    SonicBlue is made of people!!! You maniacs!!! oh wait...
  • I think that any judge who thinks privacy is not an issue should have webcams (or put it on c-span) installed in his/her house, car and place of business with all of their online activity, phone calls and personal conversations transcribed for the viewing audience for 1 year before they are qualified to make a decision about teh privacy of others.
  • When you click on a particular comment the following page scrolls you down to that comment directly thereby bypassing the viewing of the great banner ads on top of the page.
    If I was a sponsor, I would request Slashdot to turn over the user browsing data on the grounds that the above activity clearly constitutes as stealing the content. Also, scroll bars should be disabled until the banner ad goes through at least 3 iterations of its images.

  • Tacking Viewing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kmellis ( 442405 ) <kmellis@io.com> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @05:54PM (#3526469) Homepage
    As much as I desperately want to agree with the general sentiment here on Slashdot about this case and this specific issue, I'm not sure I can.

    The fact of the matter is that the viewing habits that can be tracked and utilized by a PVR that is networked are extremely valuable and useful to a whole host of interested parties. It dwarfs the value of similar data about web users' habits and demographics.

    I tend not to be as militant about privacy as most of the rest of you. Even so, I agree that this type of information should be anonymous if it is collected. Perhaps also an explicit opt-in. But even with those requirements, the data collected is still very useful and valuable. That data is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers. The broadcast industry had every reason to expect that SonicBlue was collecting this information; and, if not, that they will in the future. It's disingenuous of SonicBlue to act as if collecting that information is something that they don't do and would never consider doing. Frankly, that would be a stupid business decision.

    In this way, this information and its collection is substantially different from the "sensor in the wheelchair" or "microphone in the bar" analogies that Amici uses. In those cases, that information would never be collected for any reason outside the context of a court order. In the SonicBlue case, this information is closer to, for example, Best Buy's information on what kinds of people buy what kinds of products from which Best Buy stores. Best Buy probably collects this information, and there are hypothetical court cases where this would be relevant and completely acceptable for the plaintiff to order its discovery (or how ever that should be worded).

    SonicBlue is in a tricky situation here. The broadcast industry is asking for information that SonicBlue might reasonably be collecting and that they very well may want to be collecting if they're not. The broadcast industry wants information on how the ReplayTV devices are being used, and that information is relevant to the case. SonicBlue certainly has an interest in how their PVRs are being used, and that information is at their fingertips.

    I don't think that Amici is going to convince the court of their position. The personal privacy issues can be easily addressed while still collecting the information that is relevant to the case. And that information is not merely relevant -- it's crucial. Is the ReplayTV a device that exists to break copyright law? Or is it a perfectly acceptable example of fair use in the VCR tradition? SonicBlue can supply strong evidence one way or another simply by checking to see how their product is being used. As I said, it's at their fingertips, and there's good reason to believe that they are or will be collecting it anyway.

    Having said all that, I'm as rabidly angry about the entertainment industry's methods and goals in the wider debate as anyone here on Slashdot.

    • Bear in mind that the same arguments were made against the VCR as are being made against the PVR. The courts ruled that it didn't matter how large or small a percentage the legitimate uses were, because the VCR manufacturers didn't have control over that. All that mattered was that a) there were legitimate, non-copyright-infringing uses for VCRs, and b) the VCR makers were targeting their sales at those legitimate uses and not to the illegal ones. If one replaced PVR with VCR in the case, the court would have to ignore Federal appeals court precedent to rule in favor of plaintiffs here. So what precisely is different between a VCR and a PVR, other than that one records on iron oxide on a plastic substrate and the other records on silicon, that would demand that the two not be treated the same?

    • I disagree strongly with several of your arguments. And I'm not saying anything that isn't in the Amici brief.

      First of all, SonicBlue is not making a "stupid business decision." They're making a very smart one. Their competition got *fried* on privacy issues for making the decision you advocate. So they made the opposite decision, and then advertised it as a feature. Tivo has since anonymized their data significantly, but there's still a black eye. (And the DTivo box is anything but anonymous...DirecTV is absolutely spying.)

      Yes, this information is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers, but only because they can sell it to the content cartel. I fail to see, however, how the value of the information correlates to whether it's OK to collect it.

      But this ruling goes far beyond that. It required that a device be used to collect ostensibly private information, simply because it was within the capability of the device to do so.

      Think about this for a moment. Let's change the names a bit. Let's say that the RIAA gets tired of Apple and goes after them. So they sue Apple, and get a court order demanding that they install keystroke loggers in the OS to see where Apple's customers are getting their music. Certainly this is data that Apple might want (hey, good marketroids want all the data they can get!), but it's not data that Apple is going to collect, because to do so would be a massive invasion of privacy.

      %s/Apple/SonicBlue/
      %s/RIAA/MPAA/
      %s/music/mov ies/
      %s/OS/Replay 4000/

      Get the point?

      This isn't really about Copyright law anymore. It's about privacy, which is allegedly protected by the Constitution.

    • What is collected is a list of all shows that have been recorded and what shows are scheduled to record. Essentially, this is the table of contents you see when selecting shows. The unit has to send this information back to SonicBlue's servers in order for the web-based my.replaytv.com service to work (which allows you to delete shows or schedule new recordings when the box next calls home).

      What is presumably difficult to provide is a history of what was watched. Even more difficult would be to record a history of fast forwarding, automatic commercial advance, and manual 30-second skip usage.

      Making things worse is that older units (like my 2020) are short on RAM, so any new code added to comply with court orders would have to be added at the expense of removing other features.
    • I tend not to be as militant about privacy as most of the rest of you. Even so, I agree that this type of information should be anonymous if it is collected. Perhaps also an explicit opt-in. But even with those requirements, the data collected is still very useful and valuable. That data is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers . The broadcast industry had every reason to expect that SonicBlue was collecting this information; and, if not, that they will in the future. It's disingenuous of SonicBlue to act as if collecting that information is something that they don't do and would never consider doing. Frankly, that would be a stupid business decision.

      The data may be worth a great deal, but as the Amici point out collecting it would be a federal criminal offence in the United States, and incidentally it would also be a criminal offence in every state in the European Community. Don't know the state of the law on privacy in Japan, but my guess is the only place you could do this legally would be a few obscure third world countries. So it was not reasonable for the broadcasters to assume SonicBLUE was collecting this information. They may have had the means to collect it, but they had no right to do so.

    • That this information is useful to many people ... true
      That this information has a dollar value to the PVR business ... true
      That this information can be given without breaking traditionaly privacy grounds ... true

      BUT, let's look at the facts

      This information is useful, but does the court have a right to give that information based on the belief that something might have been done illegally. As the Amici discusses this is like saying "We're not sure if they broke the law, we believe they may have. You should have somebody monitor them at all times to see if they will". As much as SonicBLUE has the capabilities and possibly future plans for this technology doesn't matter. It is beyond the powers of the court to set a precedent like this

      Also, once again it doesn't matter if there is a possible dollar value to this. The court shouldn't have the power to force SonicBLUE to give this info. even if it is of value to them. What if SonicBLUE did want to sell this. This would be like the court saying "Give it to them for free". The fact that this information has a value is not the point. The point is the scope of the case involved and the data requested is beyond the scope of what may or might be, it's what IS and what should be allowed.

      Also, this information can be given without breaking privacy concerns. But that's not what the industry is asking for. First, they don't just want information about ad skipping ( which is obscure since most people don't sign contracts about watching them anyway... but I digress ) and sending files. They want EVERYTHING. That's beyond what they would need IF they were to have it. Also, the information wouldn't be aggregate it would be personally identifiable by a unique number ( why is this necessary? this is beyond the info they need )

  • Over the past few weeks I've seen several different publications hint at the concept that "when viewers watch a channel they have agreed to watch the advertisement spots." Even going so far as to indicate that this is a contract between the viewer and the advertisers/networks.

    THIS IS REDICULOUS!! Is there any "viewer" out there that actually considers themselves as having agreed to watch ad spots in order to receive the programming?? Certainly I don't and never will.

    My "Contract" with the advertisers/Networks is at most this: "I pay the cable company to bring me programming. I expect to receive 100 or so channels of programming that may or may not be interesting to me or consist of quality content. Except for premium channels, I expect to be annoyed during the airing of a program by interruptions from advertisers attempting to gain my attention."

    But I never "agreed" to actually watch these annoying interruptions. In fact if I am ever forced into such a contract in order to receive a television program I'll just refuse to watch the program and the included advertisements entirely.

    If the advertisers actually want to compete for attention in the new age of PVRs then I think they should take a history lesson. In the early days of television Advertisers sponsored a particular show and their product placement and other advertisements where made during the airing of the show. Famous examples would be shows like Howdy Doody or the Milton Berle Show, etc... It was in the best interest of both the viewer and the advertiser to produce high quality shows. It was almost impossible to be aware of the program without being aware of the sponsor and vice verse.

    These days we have hundreds of times more content produced yearly but as we all know, 99% of it is pure crap. And the advertisements are, by far, the worst of the crap. Consisting of inane or irrelevant premises and pandering to the overall stupidity of the masses. 99% of all advertisements are no better than e-mail spam. Relying on contacing millions of recipients who don't need the product, can't afford the product or would be harmed by the product in an attempt to reach the overwhelming minority of recipients who do need the product or are stupid enough to waste their money on the product.

    If PVRs result in the decrease attendance of advertisements then advertisers will be lessing willing to pay for advertisement time. Decrease revenues from advertsiements would result in the decreased ability for channels to remain operative resulting in fewer available channels. Fewer channels means less air time and thus an increase in competition for air time. Increase competition means a greater likelyhood of quality shows on the fewer available channels.

    So PVRs result in fewer channels with an increased signal to noise ratio? I'm all for that. I don't need to watch crap like VIP or Greg the Bunny and I especially do not need to see another vacuous automobile commercial.

  • and make the system easily hackable...

    If they really don't believe in this, that is what I think they will do.

    Nomel

  • Wow, having read that brief by EPIC, finding out that Tivo collects info on what I watch, I'm getting a ReplayTV when I get a PVR.

    Monitoring what people read/watch/listen to is the stuff of police states, and is no better if it's a company instead of the government, I don't care why they do it.

  • II. Arguements
    B. The Television Studios Seek Greater Invasion Into Personal Lives Than The Federal Government Has In The War On Terrorism.

    The television studios are seeking, and have obtained from Judge Eick, a mandatory surveillance system even greater that what United States law enforcement, battling international terrorism, has obtained, or considers appropriate.
    If anyone doesn't believe that laws are being bought they are deluding themselves. Those wishing to preserve outdated revenue streams in the future and punishing all citizens of the United States, including those who might commit a "crime" in the future, are granted more freedoms and greater powers than those that are responding to an act of immense destruction and horrible violence that actually happened in the past.

    Suppose I were presented with a choice, where upon completion would result in the preservation of my family. If the two options were to have a plane fly into a building, killing thousands of people, or to watch a movie without commercials I would be inclined choose the former. I would be much more likely to get away with it.
  • When the courts make this kind of decisions that are so appaling that the only alternative is to still them in an higher court (if one exists).

    This of course have repercutions in the stock exchange if the companies involved are quoted in the stock exchanges they are mingling and abusivly tampering in the market values.

    Why shouldn't the courts be investigated by the SEC?

    Class protection?

    Cheers...

    P.S.- it is amazing how can a judge rule over something that he doesn't have an ounce of wit about...
    Shouldn't the special cases be judged by judges with credentials in the area? (i'm assuming too much here mayhappen... i'm assuming that judges are people with curiosity and thrus have more skills then the law)
  • This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

    Hmm, or they could just have the president/head of the writers and actors guild go into a a 5 minute rant about it at the next Oscars.

    Hell, maybe even hire some college kids to record as many TV shows as possible in three days...
  • There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.

    -- The Judge in Life-line

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.

Close