[jbarr]

Not sure if this was posted before, but I just stumbled across this blurb at the EFF.org site:

Quote:

"Calling All ReplayTV Commercial Skippers As many readers know, EFF sued 28 Hollywood movie studios last year on behalf of five owners of ReplayTV 4000 units in response to studio claims that consumers who automatically skip commercials are breaking the law. The lawsuit asked the Court to rule that commercial skipping is fair use and NOT copyright infringement. After months of litigation, EFF has finally forced the studios to give up their threats and concede that our five clients can skip all the commercials they want with their ReplayTVs without fear of legal action. So where do you come in? We've won the right to skip commercials for five consumers; now we want to make it 500, or if possible, 5,000 - the more the merrier. If you own a ReplayTV 4000 series unit or know anyone who does, contact us immediately. We are in the process of finalizing our negotiations with the movie studios and would like to get similar protection for everyone who has a ReplayTV and uses it for automatic commercial skipping. Contact us at: [email protected] For more information on the case, please see our ReplayTV archive P.S. If you use some other technology to skip commercials other than a ReplayTV 4000 series unit, drop us a line as well. While you may be outside the scope of the current case, we will be looking to bring similar cases in the future to guarantee the fair use rights of all consumers, no matter what technology you may use to enjoy them. "

 

[lizard_boy]

direct link

http://www.eff.org/effector/16/22.php?rss=1#III

 

[Crunchy Doodle]

So, does this mean that the 5500 series will suddenly acquire a new capability? If it's been declared "fair use", then Commercial Advance in the 5500 shouldn't be a problem.


Bye.

 

[Clay Schneider]

Interesting that just about this time, Radio Shack/Dish Network have launched a major ad campaign for a 3-room or 2-room-with-dvr deal, where they specifically, in both the on-line and radio ads, make mention of 'skipping recorded commercials' [though not automatic, of course]. The web link is:

http://*******.com/nd68

 

[whirly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clay Schneider Interesting that just about this time, Radio Shack/Dish Network have launched a major ad campaign for a 3-room or 2-room-with-dvr deal, where they specifically, in both the on-line and radio ads, make mention of 'skipping recorded commercials' [though not automatic, of course]. The web link is: http://*******.com/nd68

That's with Dish's 508/721 DVR which do not have anything other than a 30 sec advance button.


Yes it IS interesting but at least the 508 doesn't hold a candle to the RTV.

 

[Jeff D]

For those wanting to know about the 5k's that weren't mentioned... I've contacted the EFF and it took a week for them to respond back. The response... It will take a bit longer for us to respond. Guess they are busy at work!

 

[bob645]

Excellent!

Looks like its time for another donation...


I hope everyone here can also donate. They really are looking out for us.

https://secure.eff.org/

 

[Scyber]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Doodle So, does this mean that the 5500 series will suddenly acquire a new capability? If it's been declared "fair use", then Commercial Advance in the 5500 shouldn't be a problem.

The problem is that it appears to be a negotiated settlement. So basically there is no court decision that says Skipping Commericials is OK, rather the Entertainment industry is saying that it is OK for these users to skip commercials.


Of course, IANAL so I could be interpretting it wrong.

 

[Crunchy Doodle]

Hhmmm . . . . . in a way it's better that the "Entertainment Industry" says it's OK, rather than a court forcing it on them.


As it is, I'm happy with the four 5000 series boxes in our home, along with a dual-deck RCA VCR with Commercial Advance.


Bye.

Quote:

Originally posted by Scyber The problem is that it appears to be a negotiated settlement. So basically there is no court decision that says Skipping Commericials is OK, rather the Entertainment industry is saying that it is OK for these users to skip commercials. Of course, IANAL so I could be interpretting it wrong.

 

[whirly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Doodle Hhmmm . . . . . in a way it's better that the "Entertainment Industry" says it's OK, rather than a court forcing it on them.

Not really.


As it stands now, the only folks who have immunity from either civil or criminal action from the Hollyweird folks are the users who are listed in the negotiated agreement.


If the courts ruled on the suit, then that ruling would set a "precedent" and could be referenced in any future actions the Hollyweird folks tried to initiate.

 

[Crunchy Doodle]

OK, I'm not a lawyer, and my naive view of it tells me it would be a lot more difficult for the greedy entertainment creeps to go after anyone with this settlement on the books.


Let's hope EFF keeps after them. I've donated money to them - have all of you?


Bye.

Quote:

Originally posted by whirly Not really. As it stands now, the only folks who have immunity from either civil or criminal action from the Hollyweird folks are the users who are listed in the negotiated agreement. If the courts ruled on the suit, then that ruling would set a "precedent" and could be referenced in any future actions the Hollyweird folks tried to initiate.

 

[MasterK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crunchy Doodle OK, I'm not a lawyer, and my naive view of it tells me it would be a lot more difficult for the greedy entertainment creeps to go after anyone with this settlement on the books.

I do not that ink that is accurate at all. They are probobly goiung to claim that they have the right to grant permission to these 5 folks without affecing thier overall rights.


Look at it this way if a record compnay gives you a free copy of an album then it is legal. But if you take it from the store, or off the net it is not. Giving right to one person does not affect anyone but that one person.


I would rather see this be litigated and get a precedent set.

 

[djheater]

Quote:

I would rather see this be litigated and get a precedent set.

As would I.


We should sue the neteworks for destroying the integrity of the shows by interjecting commercials.

 

[jones07]

Quote:

Originally posted by bob645 Excellent! Looks like its time for another donation... I hope everyone here can also donate. They really are looking out for us. https://secure.eff.org/

Amen to that.

 

[joesc1]

Well, the point is to expand the pool of people covered by this settlement from the 5 original plaintiffs to all ReplayTV users. So if the Entertainment companies make exceptions for 10,000 people instead of 5, then it becomes harder for them to argue that Commercial Advance is illegal.


Hence the reason why we need more people to sign up. I did!


Joe

 

[tluxon]

Quote:

It's NOT illegal to skip commercials!!!

I don't think it's ever been determined that it was illegal to skip commercials - only that hollywood dislikes it so much that they've been willing to spend a lot of money to try to stop it. After all, their business model counts on selling commercial time to their sponsors, who in turn are looking to maximize their exposure/dollar. However, there is no law requiring that money be made this way, and the models for making money off of programming content will inevitably migrate to one that is more compatible with the way it's being watched.


The demand for technology that allows us to do more in less time is no doubt going to win over an industry's desire to protect an antiquated way of making a buck. Surely these guys are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall as lawsuits like this will gradually erode the feasibility and desire to even try to stop it.


As it is, we've always been able to "skip commercials" by stepping out of the room. CA is simply an electronic (easier) way to leave the room, so as it gets easier and easier to "leave the room" (inevitable), programming will just have to be paid for in another manner.


As information and entertainment technology advances, I'm sure the day is coming when we will turn on the "news" and skip to the weather, the sports, or whatever through a scene selection much like on a DVD. The question that remains is how will it all be paid for.


Enjoy the journey!

 

[Hankcampbell]

Quote:

Originally posted by whirly Not really. As it stands now, the only folks who have immunity from either civil or criminal action from the Hollyweird folks are the users who are listed in the negotiated agreement. If the courts ruled on the suit, then that ruling would set a "precedent" and could be referenced in any future actions the Hollyweird folks tried to initiate.

That's probably why they settled the case. If it looked like they were going to lose the case, it's better to give a little than risk a lot in a court decision.


Hank

 

[Jeff D]

Quote:

Originally posted by Scyber The problem is that it appears to be a negotiated settlement. So basically there is no court decision that says Skipping Commericials is OK, rather the Entertainment industry is saying that it is OK for these users to skip commercials. Of course, IANAL so I could be interpretting it wrong.

If this is true, doesn't it set a precidence?

 

[JimWCB]

Another interesting question:


Will people who get added to the settlement be able to ask DNNA to activate CA on 5500s for them?

 

[toots]

I'm betting at least one of the reasons why the EI backed down is because DNNA backed down first.


I mean, if they were still planning on producing a line of commercial-skipping PVRs from now 'til when they go the way of Beta, the EI would still be pretty cranky about this, and still be making noise.


But, with the new machines disappearing, and with DNNA's stated attitude being that they'll no longer produce new CA products so as to avoid further lawsuits, the scope of the problem is suddenly less threatening to the EI.


I'm sure things would have gone much differently had DNNA not backed down on it.