 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| VOD choices from the consumer Why wouldn't this be good for consumer choice?
This Copyright Alliance better come up with a new formula for revenues because technology is moving faster (on several different fronts) than they can keep up with.
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| all about control the copyright crap is just an excuse - the entertainment industry wants to control what you do with "their" content.
anytime someone comes up with an innovative idea for using content, they swoop in and sue - apparently they are either too stupid to innovate themselves or it's just easier to sue the issue out of existence.
so predictable | |
|
 | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: all about control You got that right.. An idea for Cablevision.. set up a self service storage unit, like you'd put that old couch in and charge $9.95/mo.... company will co-locate "your" DVR and rent that space and grant you access for $9.95/mo ?? | |
|
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO
edit:
November 6th, @11:21AM
| I think it's great!!! I think this is great but will it start shows on Time VS the DVR i have right now? I miss the first min of shows if the start at the same time. | |
|
| |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Networks being inconsistent Right now the networks offer streaming of the shows via their website yet they claim that CV streaming a saved copy via the Network DVR is not allowed. If they are screaming about ad revenue, then all that is needed is for CV to report to them how many viewing there are so the networks can add it to their Nelson figures for charging the advertisers (remember that the CV copy will have the original ads still there). Note: This is just CV reporting on eyeballs not paying anything for the viewings.
BTW: I see no difference between the DVR physically being in my home and being physically (or virtually) located at the CV head end. The network DVR is just the equivalent of a physical DVD being being controlled via a built-in Web Page instead of the buttons or a remote control. It is the same, IMO, as a Virtual Internet Server or a Co-Located Internet Server Host. What would they say if my DVR was physically located at the Head End and feed my TV over my Cable Connection? The fact that the DVR is virtual in lieu of a physical discrete device should not alter the situation just like Virtual Hosting is the same as having a Co-Located Server Host Machine. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent said by RARPSL  :Right now the networks offer streaming of the shows via their website yet they claim that CV streaming a saved copy via the Network DVR is not allowed. BTW: I see no difference between the DVR physically being in my home and being physically (or virtually) located at the CV head end. The key words in your first statement is their website.
The difference according to the content providers is that you are in a private home while the cable company is a profit-making business that is retransmitting their copyrighted content. If you attempt to make a profit off the content don't be surprised if the content providers are willing to take you all the way to the SCOTUS. | |
|
| 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. Heck if anything it acutally reduces the ability to grab the copyrighted material by the end user. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent said by Neyland85 :I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. The difference is the content providers want the for profit cable companies to have to obtain their permission. | |
|
| | |
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Networks being inconsistent Is this a matter of 10 people record 'LOST' so the network DVR records it once and grants all 10 people that had prior requests to recording access so this is considered a
rebroadcast?
It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. | |
|
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent said by Neyland85 :It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. It could be argued that if I receive a broadcast station from the cable headend for my private enjoyment that the cable company is simply acting as my antenna. Whether I like it or not (and if retransmission consent agreements increase my bill I don't) the content providers ultimately won their argument against that in court. | |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | How does the entertainment industry like direct tv pc play a How does the entertainment industry like direct tv pc play app?
If direct tv can do it why not cable? | |
|
Yaco
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ | Raise the rates! There will be a $10.00+ a month surcharge. It is not that difficult to figure out.
Lee
--
"I Don't feel Tardy"
| |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| sigh Hmm, lets get doctrine of first sale involved, and I'm sure there is a latin phrase for "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck".
If you want to argue that CV is doing the copying and not the user and is a infringement enabler, perhaps its time for the RIAA to sue Sam Goody or Virgin for enabling infringment, or a speaker manufacturer since the speaker manufactuer doesn't do anything to prevent using the speaker to publically play unlicensed music, or better, sue the speaker wire manufactuer for making the wire using in the stereo used to play the record for a group.
Next question, can Google be sued if I use a Gdrive hooked upto a Myth TV box? Can the HD manufactuer be sued? Can God be sued for not putting DRM into DNA of people letting them infringe copyright? | |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the consumer is more important then law. if the customer wants network DVR then they should get Network DVR and copyright law shouldnt be allowed to prevent it nore should the content owners. the IP owners need to learn that they are our slaves, without us consumers they wouldnt exist.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| 
mrchris
America the pitiful
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: the consumer is more important then law. IP laws direly need an overhaul without douchebags like RIAA getting in the way of buying their way for laws they want. | |
|
| kinabrew
join:2002-02-01
·Comcast
| Do you want network DVR?
I definitely don't, because if companies offer network DVR service, I would expect them to be less likely to offer box DVR service, and having the box DVR gives me more chance to extract and permanently save video, as well as more control over how the video is played(like skipping commercials).
--
from MacStack.net | |
|
| | magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
edit:
November 7th, @09:47AM
| Re: the consumer is more important then law. If you are able to get content off a Moto or Cisco DVR, you should post how you did it.
Nothing saying you can't skip commercials on a network DVR. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i prefer my local disk based DVR, my simple point is that if the people want it then the entertainment industry shouldnt have a legal right to deny it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
| Does it really matter? Whenever a Cablevision customer goes to watch one of their recorded shows, chances are it will tell you to try again later... not to mention the quality is sure to be crap.. if the SDV quality is any indication on how this garbage is going to look.. this network DVR is certain to dissapoint.. when people can get it to work. | |
|
jsm1234
@optonline.net
| why is it even in question, its the broadcasters content.. My thoughts on this..
It doesn't matter if Cablevision is 100% in the right, if its not their content, I don't think it should be their call.
As far s I know, Verizon had to agree to disable fast forward to offer ABC VOD HD, they didn't say, thats not fair we don't want that. They wanted the content, well thats what the broadcasters wanted.
I think its more than a legal argument, I think (as long as their consistant, as long as they apply the same rules for all) then its the broadcasters right to decide how their content is to be displayed. | |
|
|
|
|
Network DVR Court Fight Continues
·