http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011128/tc/tech_sonicblue_networks_dc_3.html

Oh, this will be a fun one to watch.

Go, go, Sonic Blue!

Oh maaaan..... now i have to think about selling my backup empeg just to buy a ReplayTV!

Gotta hand it to 'em, they've got some serios cajones for going up against the networks.

does anyone know which networks are the problem

Uhh the article says the big 3 (CBS, NBC, ABC) are involved...

the details of the lawsuit don't even make sense how does skipping commercials violate a copyright. and even if it does "rob them of revenues" when did that become illegal.

...when did that become illegal.

When all these companies decided to throw all our fair use rights out the door. RIAA, MPAA, the networks...you name it.

Just wait...once they launch these music subscription services (MusicNet and PressPlay), we're in big trouble. They'll offer tethered downloads, which means you pay to download the files to your computer, and once there, cannot be transferred anywhere else (portable, CD-R, empeg, etc.). And of course, once you stop subscribing, they'll expire and you won't have access to them anymore.

But, while all this fails, the brick-and-mortar record stores will all go out of business. Already, Tower Records is doing horribly and will probably file bankruptcy soon.

When will it end?

I don't even think this is a fair rights issue maybe the program sharing feature is but not the comercial skipping

I think it was further back when lawyers came about. now these large companies file a lawsuit based on crap and the small company ends up going broke defending itself (like with the two companies that had sony playstation emulators for sale)

I would like to see the music part end when the artists figure out they can just sell their stuff themselves on the internet and cut out the middle man.

I talk back to EOL but can someone explain why Sonicblue announced EOL for empeg because they dont make profit with Empeg and they are ready to spend money in suits against big companies like NBC, ....

How many people are ReplayTV owners ?

They obviously see more potential in the PVR market than in the non-OEM car stereo market.

My personal view on their willingness to release the RTV 4000 product despite pending litigation is this: They want to sell as many of them as possible while the legal battles take place, make a pile of money, and abruptly EOL the product once they can no longer fight off the thousands of plantiff lawyers, leaving the end users with an unsupported product.

Sound familiar? (minus the lawyers)

I disagree with the Yahoo article. I think SonicBlue will definitely lose the lawsuit(s), but the law is sufficiently "gray" enough in this area to allow for a very long time before they're cooked. The RTV not only allows commercial skipping, but it allows HIGH QUALITY distribution of the recorded shows over broadband. They state that you can only share with 15 people, but come on, hackers will find a way to defeat that to allow distribution to anyone. At that point, why bother watching TV, and sitting through ads, when you can just leech the latest episode from a friend? IANAL, but I think the Betamax case cited as a legal precedent is not nearly as relevant as is stated in the article, and won't hold up in court.

Needless to say, I am strongly considering ordering a RTV 4000.

They want to sell as many of them as possible while the legal battles take place, make a pile of money, and abruptly EOL the product

No, I disagree. I don't think they intend to EOL the product.

I think they are taking advantage of the timing (xmas shopping season) to put themselves in the news. People will hear the news reports about these "PVRs that the networks hate", and will (hopefully) rush out to buy these "pirate boxes"* before the networks put a stop to it.

If the networks do not succeed in stopping them, all the better. Even if the networks do succeed, all it takes is an online firmware squirt to disable the offending features, but the quickly-gained market share and the installed base of users doesn't decrease. Win-win.

*Note emphasized quotes, I do not personally think they are pirate boxes.

So, commercial skipping isn't the legal issue, it is just the part that pisses them off. Basically, recording is the copyright issue (like with VCR's). What I don't understand, is how they can bring up copyright law against RePlay, but look the other way with TiVo (which was heavily invested in my the Networks in return for TiVo removing their own commercial skip features).

I remember when both the TiVo and RePlay were introduced at SEMA quite a few years back (I believe this was before SonicBlue was owner?). RePlay seemed to have the advantage because it didn't require subscription fees, but the networks invested in TiVo (probably for the same reason - so they can get a cut of the fees).

This just sickens me.

I don't think your statement is mutually exclusive of mine. I agree they're taking advantage of the holiday season and trying to cash in on the "gold rush" of people wanting to get them before it's too late. I am completely on board with your statement that they could always change the firmware in an effort to get the networks off their back, but the amount of players they sell with the old firmware may be high enough that the networks aren't satisfied with that. Also, we all know that hackers will find ways to re-enable these features via hacked firmware, etc, and the networks will get wind of this Even if RTV tries to do a "push" of the firmware to every unit, people will find ways around that, too.

I think therefore the networks will ultimately win, and SonicBlue will get hit with a massive settlement unless they agree to stop production of the hardware. Remember, a firmware push can't disable the hardware's ability to redistribute the shows and skip commercials, but putting an end to the product line can.

I actually do think it's a pirate box, and I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not. The revenues for television shows on the networks come from advertising. If I'm not subjected to WUZZAAAAP and "Howyadoin" Budweiser commercials, FOX has no money to pay Matt Groening, Hank Azaria, et. al., and I lose my Simpsons. They also can't pay the NFL for the rights to telecast NFL games. Then the NFL can't pay the players, and I don't have my football games. Boo.

I am NOT a fan of commercials, and if I get a RTV 4000 I will happily skip them. But I will do this with full knowledge and understanding that I'm depriving the networks of their ability to advertise to me, and that might in the long term endanger the financial structure of network television. For you to say it's not a pirate box means you don't think anyone would lose money if the RTV 4000 were to suddenly appear in everyone's home. Can you explain how you've arrived at this conclusion?

For you to say it's not a pirate box means you don't think anyone would lose money if the RTV 4000 were to suddenly appear in everyone's home.

The Pony Express would lose a ton of money if everyone had a device in their house that let them talk to other people in real-time. In fact, Pony Express's entire business model rests on nobody inventing any telecommunications method more advanced than the pony. Alexander Graham Bell is thus a nefarious pirate and an Enemy of Americanism.

Peter

For you to say it's not a pirate box means you don't think anyone would lose money if the RTV 4000 were to suddenly appear in everyone's home.

Well, its legal status isn't for me to determine. That's up to the lawyers and the judges.

Keep in mind that the revenue problem you cite (the commercial skipping) is a different issue than the piracy one (copying programs to other users on a broadband connection). The copying of the shows is the thing that could be called piracy, yet that's not the thing that gives them revenue troubles.

Video tape recorders were supposed to be a huge problem when they came out. You could skip commercials with VCR's for example. You could even use the Pause button to edit out commercials, then copy the edited tape for a friend.

Guess what? The video tape market has MADE money for the networks rather than cost them money. Plenty of popular television shows are being sold on video tape now. And tape trading has allowed the networks to get people hooked on serialized programs with long-running story threads like Buffy (if you miss an episode, you can borrow your friend's tape of the missed episode). I'm sure there are other benefits that I'm not listing (anyone?).

I don't see the Replay 4000 being any different than this. The only difference is it makes the distribution and commercial-skipping easier.

What the networks should be doing, instead of suing Replay, is to investigate business models that will allow them to offer content directly to Replay subscribers over the broadband link. Here they are complaining about how satellite dishes are robbing them of their over-the-air distribution channels, and here comes a piece of hardware that will allow them to send content to the homes directly again. All they'd need to do is play nice and work with SonicBlue instead of against them. They are so short-sighted.

They will find (and have) other ways to make revenue. They have to change with the times. For example: Product placement. This happens SO much. Sometimes, entire episodes or scenes in a movie are writen just to showcase a product. Or naming sport events after product. I don't like either of these approaches because I think it interferes with the creative process and "vision" of writers (however I think the sitcom "Friends" has less to lose than David Lynch would) but I think more of this is going to happen. How about banner ads during shows! yuck! Sounds silly, but it already happens in a certain way!

I don't really see the value in "sending" a program to another person. It is certainly harder to justify and defend. I don't think it will be a big spending point either.

This reminds me a bit of how of the 500+ people in US custody because of the Sept. 11 attacks, none of them are actually being held on terrorism charges. They are being held on immigration charges. So, the networks hate you for commercial skip, so they sue you for copyright infringment (not related, but as long as they get you, they don't care).

If this becomes a criminal matter rather than a civil matter, what will be TiVo's defense? (The networks have invested in TiVo, so wont sue it.)

I don't think networks make any money off of selling sitcoms on tape. The studios and production company do. (Depends on who owns the show, and most networks do not actually own the shows).

How about this: Make commercials more entertaining! I don't like football very much, but I watch it to see the commercials!

... but the Pony Express didn't write the mail nor the telephone conversations.

Now come on. I'm not saying it's evil, I'm saying it fits the definition of piracy. We're not talking about building a better mousetrap, we're talking about making it much easier for someone to circumvent the advertisements that support their programs. The Pony Express didn't hold IP rights to the messages they were carrying.

It should be known I am a proponent of a pay-to-play subscription-based model for everything, where there would be no advertising revenues necessary. I'd rather pay 50 cents to watch whatever show I want to watch, whenever I want to watch it, than sit through commercials. So the RTV 4000 is a step in that direction, and I would very much like to own one. But it IS piracy in that my use of the commercial skip and redistributing the shows is a method of circumventing their revenue stream. I'm not an evil person for doing so, and in fact this might be a good wakeup call to tell the network execs that TV advertising is dead, but it's piracy, plain and simple.

What the networks should be doing, instead of suing Replay, is to investigate business models that will allow them to offer content directly to Replay subscribers over the broadband link. Here they are complaining about how satellite dishes are robbing them of their over-the-air distribution channels, and here comes a piece of hardware that will allow them to send content to the homes directly again. All they'd need to do is play nice and work with SonicBlue instead of against them. They are so short-sighted.

As previously mentioned they are backing TiVo already. They've got their horse in the PVR race. It's a double standard but that's never stopped anyone before.

The networks, and for that matter the whole "content" industry, has a pretty cozy business model that has evolved in bits and spurts over the past century. Every once in a while, a "disruptive" technology (first albums, then radio, then TV, then VCRs, and now the Internet/MP3 thing) comes along and changes the rules. They always fight it, and they always end up giving up and making more money in the end. What really scares them, this time around, is the ability for consumers to make "perfect" copies. You couldn't do that before. That means that consumers can create their own content distribution networks, as it were, and that really upsets these folks. Never mind that there's still plenty of opportunity to make money off of this.

For example, if I want to "send" a show from my ReplayTV to yours over my DSL connection (128k upstream, 1.5M downstream), and assuming you've got a similar connection, it's not going to be very fast. If the video is five megabits in real time, then you're talking about a factor of 40 slowdown (limited by the 128k link). Sending you a one hour show will take almost two days! But, maybe I could download a show from an officially sanctioned web site, and then I get to download it at the full 1.5Mbits, giving me a one hour show in about four hours. You could send it during the day, when I'm not home, or at night when I'm asleep, and I'd probably pay for the service.

Move this up to high-definition video, and the disparity becomes even more pronounced. Give me a hi-def TiVo or ReplayTV with a fast, centralized download service, and I'll be all over it.

Every once in a while, a "disruptive" technology (first albums, then radio, then TV, then VCRs, and now the Internet/MP3 thing) comes along and changes the rules. They always fight it, and they always end up giving up and making more money in the end.

Well put.

Sending you a one hour show will take almost two days!

This is the part I don't understand. Yeah, you can swap programs with friends. But, not only do they have to have a Replay TV 4000, but they also need to have a fast internet connection.

In addition to this, the video quality would have to be greatly compressed, otherwise the time required to send the file would not be worth it.

I've always been an advocate of the process that you mentioned, where the programs are stored on a central server with an ultra-fast connection.

Ultimately, this is where television should head. When a new program is produced, it's made available on these centralized servers (you'd probably at least one one for every metro area). Then, the user at home goes to his cable box, selects the show he wants to watch, and it's sent down to their box which has a built in hard drive.

Now, the networking would be a nightmare for this...Imagine 1 million people all requesting different shows at the same time. That's why they'd have to have a lot of servers setup. But, I think it can be done...

Many people have cable modems or DSL with stupid-fast bandwidth. I don't think it would take that long to send a program to another user. I do agree that it's only useful for people with fat pipes, though.

You are right about data compression. But it's no big deal to many people watching on small-screen televisions who simply want to see the latest Buffy episode they missed.

For those who dislike looking at data compression artifacts, then this product isn't for them. I'm one of those people. I even dumped my little-dish DirecTV unit when the data compression got too irritating. Now I'm on big-dish C-band satellite with high-def capability and no data compression and I'm happy. But I can't use a Tivo or Replay with that system.

Now I'm on big-dish C-band satellite

Ahh, so you have a BUD (Big Ugly Dish). Have you ever tried to tune in directly to the satellites to catch the broadcasts of new shows to the affiliates (before they're aired)?

Have you ever tried to tune in directly to the satellites to catch the broadcasts of new shows to the affiliates (before they're aired)?

Yes, these are called Wildfeeds and Backhauls, and there is a complete sub-culture built up around tracking and cataloging these shows.

The only thing is that the networks deliberately do their backhauls at odd hours. Anything I want to see, I would have to set up the VCR to tape it because I'd either be at work or asleep at the time they're uploaded. But I've done that a few times and it works.

I also once taped a wildfeed broadcast bounced over from Isreal for a friend this way. It was a temple dedication ceremony.

Also, on my 4DTV system, you can occasionally find some digital channels which are normally supposed to be encrypted, but are actually being shown "in the clear" on channels which aren't mapped into the main menus. If you know how to poke around in the system's service menus, you can map these "unlisted" channels and view them. Rather slick actually.

All that sounds awesome.

I can't do any of that here in San Diego. There's no room for BUDs at most places (especially my condo). I can't even use DirecTV because I'm facing the wrong direction. It's not worth the hassle to deal with the housing board about getting a satellite installed on the roof (I'm not on the top floor).

Of course, my parents live in Canada. So, I plan on building a hacked DirecTV and sending it up their way.

Whats a 4dtv system?

So, commercial skipping isn't the legal issue, it is just the part that pisses them off.

Exactly.

Think about this... it is the networks that are promoting the lawsuit. These are the same networks that broadcast their programming over the airwaves, not only free for anybody with a television set to watch, but they go to incredible work and expense to encourage as many people as they possibly can to watch their products.

So would somebody please explain to me, just how in hell is it in any way damaging to the networks to have even more people (i.e., those terrible Replay Pirates) see their programming?

As far as skipping commercials goes... my TiVo fast-forwards at 60x playing speed. I press the FF button for four seconds, and I have skipped a four minute commercial break. Only difference is Replay does it automagically. And having had some experience with the Commercial Advance(tm) technology, I can tell you this: TiVo's method is better! The Commercial Advance(tm) technology is at best about 85% accurate (at least in the VCR's I've had that use it) which means that about four times an hour you are going to see a commercial, or you are going to unintentionally skip past some of your programming.

I don't know if Replay licenses Commercial Advance(tm) technology or if they use some other method. I ended up turning my Commercial Advance(tm) off after a while as being too unreliable.

tanstaafl.

Hmm. Tanstaafl means there's no free lunch, right? Those broadcasts come with commercials. If someone distributes TV shows, they get less advertising dollars. Stations sell advertising based on how many people are watching shows. If nobody's tuned in, then nobody's going to advertise. If I can get an episode from my friend with no commercials to watch, you best believe I'm going to do it rather than have to tune in at a certain time and sit through the ads.

In reality, the networks don't give a damn if people watch Friends. They want people to watch the Ford and Budweiser and Burger King commercials which are in between Friends. So any "increased distribution" of the shows is irrelevant to their agenda unless the commercials are there.

I'm not calling those who share or skip commercials using the RTV 4000 evil, I'm just saying they're pirates by definition. They're obtaining something without "paying the piper" by sitting through commercials. But so is someone who flips over to a digital music channel, or someone who fast-forwards through them on their VCR, or someone who goes to the fridge while they're on. And as I've said, I am likely to put my name on the list for one of these things, as I think it's a cool device. But if I watch broadcast TV without watching the commercials, I am in some small way reducing their bottom line. Do I give a $hit? No. But do they have a legal case against the product I'm using? Hell yeah.

Yes I'm taking this definition of pirates literally, but that's what judges do in court, right?

If I can get an episode from my friend with no commercials to watch...

Aye, but there's the rub. You won't get the episode without commercials -- they will still be in the file you receive from him. The trick is, your Replay can play the file and automatically skip over the commercials if you so desire. But this is no different from receiving a videotape copy of the program from a friend and skipping over those commercials.

But that's not the point I am making -- the net result of this "piracy" is that more people are exposed to the program. This means the network can claim that more people watched the show, and set their advertising rates accordingly. That's how they make their money -- the more people that watch a show, the more they can charge for advertising. They do not factor in how many people "go to the refrigerator" during commercials.

So, I guess I still cannot understand why the networks would start a lawsuit to make fewer people watch their show. As you said in your previous post, it isn't the piracy that they are upset about -- it's the skipping of the commercials. They can't sue just because people don't watch the ads... but they can sue on a piracy issue, even though the more "piracy" that occurrs the better off they are. It's as though they're saying "Please, please watch our shows. But don't let your friends watch them because that would be piracy."

Go figure...

tanstaafl.

For me, it is contradictory intentions from the 3 big because I remeber when the first VCR appeared , big companies were scandalized cos they said it announced the Death of cinemas.
There is still cinemas in the world.


When you record a TV program with classical VCR, they imagine that we cannot evitate commercials....

When I want to give a program to someone, i give this person the tape and he can watch it with no commercials.
With network sharing, you can give recorded programs easily.

Finally, I am not a lawer, but for me the Freedom is to watch what I want on TV.

I dont want watch Friends, i do not watch Friends.

But with commercials, it is more difficult to get trough.

Commercials are almost imposed.
That is against freedom of people.

In reply to:

---

they imagine that we cannot evitate commercials

---

You'll have smu reaching for a dictionary again!

Hi.

But that's not the point I am making -- the net result of this "piracy" is that more people are exposed to the program. This means the network can claim that more people watched the show, and set their advertising rates accordingly.

I don't know the exact system in the US, but if it is by any means similar to the one used in Germany, that statement is untrue. Sure, more people will see their program, and probably also more people will actually see the commercials (heck, there are times when I actually enjoy watching those), but due to the system used to count the people exposed to the program, they probably can't set their ad rates any higher.
In Germany, there is a certain institution (can't recall their name though) that "counts" how many people watch which station/program. To achieve this, they don't actually count _every_ _single_ person that watches TV, but have a (large) group of people who keep a record on when they watch TV and which program. More accurately: They use an additional remote to tell a blackbox which one in the household is actually watching TV and which program, and that blackbox transfers that info back to the institute via a seperate phone line. Those families are also instructed to "check out" from watching TV for fridge/bathroom/etc. breaks and to check back in afterwards. Now the problem with this procedure is that the blackbox has no way of knowing which programs you might have taped or plan to tape (well, more modern boxes are able to be told about future recording events), but most certainly have absolutely _no_ way of knowing how many people are watching a taped show in the future. Don't forget that those quotes are often published within the same hour or the next day at the latest.

cu,
sven

You'll have smu reaching for a dictionary again!

Not necessary, inevitable is really much more common than inebriate, but in this special case, even looking for "evitate" would return a result for my most used online dictionary at http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de or http://dict.leo.org/?lang=en for the english version:

1 search results for 'evitate' 

English:                German: 

evitable accident       vermeidbarer Unfall

Hey, I did this lookup just to please you.

cu,
sven

The RTV 4000 story is now on CNN Headline News as I type this... They're saying Hollywood is going to go after them as well because people can basically rent a pay-per-view movie and record a perfect digital copy and send it, blah blah blah.. The CEO of SonicBlue (Ken something) was on and sounding WAAAY too much like the Napster execs.. Talking about how the RTV4000 is giving power to the consumer and "that's not what the big networks want..."

Napster tried the "revolt against Big Brother" strategy and look where they are... This is big business, not some political revolution. I wish these executives would check in with reality every once in awhile and realize they're just businessmen, not philosophers or religious figures. I'm sure this guy has to be smart to get where he got, but come on, saying this thing is a weapon in the war against big monopolistic networks is so trite it's embarssing.

Looks like the board of directors sent the CEO packing (apparently related to the recent finanical investigations going around - and that he needed to repay a loan to SonicBlue). The new CEO is apparently going to downplay the lawsuit (::give up::) and focus on getting the company profitable (which is always good).

http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20020812S0029

(Isn't it funny how people with money always win)