[Babbster]

Specifically, they need to permanently disable (ASAP) the ability to send shows between Replay 4000-series boxes over the Internet.


Don't get me wrong. I think the feature is handy, and I don't consider it a particularly vile copyright violation (particularly with the limits on resending and number of sends). That being said, I don't think they can win, and they risk putting PVRs under more scrutiny than they should, for the simple fact that virtually every recorded show (except perhaps for home videos) sent from one ReplayTV box to another is a technical violation of someone's copyright. For better or worse (probably the latter), the law IS a technical thing.


Without even talking about a channel like HBO (a "pure" pay channel), this applies to everything recorded from cable, satellite or an antenna. If I record an episode of The X-Files, I have no right to distribute that recording in any form, whether it's handing someone a video tape or beaming it over my DSL line; as soon as I do, I've violated copyright.


Now, do I personally think it's a big deal? Nope. Have I handed a tape on which I recorded a copyrighted show to a friend or family member? Yup (and I'll probably do it again). Of course, every time I've done so I've technically broken the law. SonicBlue, in providing this capability to users, could very possibly be found to have encouraged the systematic violation of copyrights by including this feature, and there could be stiff penalties ahead if that is found to be the case in court.


Being a fan of the technology in general, and ReplayTV in specific, I would like to see them be able to continue innovating. I fear that this particular innovation could end up causing serious repercussions, both against SonicBlue and, to a larger extent, PVRs as a whole, especially if some nasty congressman in the pocket of media companies - I think you know who I mean - becomes emboldened to try and legislate other PVR functionality out of existence.


Even if Internet sharing is lost, the networking capability of ReplayTV can still be useful, both for guide/software updates (especially if they figure out a slick way to do more frequent guide updates) and for streaming between boxes in the same house. I just don't think the Internet sharing is worth fighting for, especially if it is a quixotic battle...


-Aaron

 

[aslagle]

You have not broken *any* law by sharing a tape. That falls under specific 'fair use' rights reaffirmed in the Betamax ruling.


Now, if you decided to give a 'public performance' of said tape, or worse, charge admission for it - then you've infringed on the copyright.

 

[alyosha]

Give up and spend money for advertising instead of for lawyers? It is just the choice they made, America loves lawsuits...

 

[LightBulb]

I think they have alterior motives. The ability to share video, and NOT just network and cable TV programs, is powerful.

 

[FreezeFrame]

Well the ads go with the content, so what's the big deal. Also the content could just as easily be private video, in which case should a number of effective monopolies be dictating to you what kind of private video distribution you can do? That's a severe infringement of your rights to free speech. The ReplayTV units honor any copyrights markings, which exist and are easy to implement. If the content makers want to limit distribution then they should so mark the content in such a way to make it clear exactly what they want/expect ....


Following your analogy all cars should have speed limiters set to 65 ...

 

[GatewayTony]

The ability to share videos, in theory, would hurt people's desire to purchase the DVDs of whatever movie or show or series, etc.


The lawsuit, IMHO, is a stall tactic. Basically a "we are working to get laws passed which will prevent this, but in the mean time we need to try and stop this one company now."


Personally, I find it more beneficial for me if I were to EMAIL the extracted files... of course, I run my own mail server with a good 16+ Gigs of storage free at any given moment. But it could also be said for web or ftp access as well.


Fact is, people WILL find a way around it.


What I'm personally finding annoying is that this would also stop me from using the secondary input and sending off the video I shot from a street festival, or wedding, or anything which isn't in the studio's money belts. They are trying to dictate what I can and cannot do with my own video.




The amusing part for me is that the spying on my habits using my Replay will merely show that I have absolutely no interest in network TV these days... Showtime, HBO, Comedy Central, Tech TV and Sci-Fi are where I catch 99% of my television these days.

 

[Babbster]

Quote:

You have not broken *any* law by sharing a tape. That falls under specific 'fair use' rights reaffirmed in the Betamax ruling.

I can understand why you might believe this, since that particular misinformation (lie?) has been spread around by people who want to pretend that sharing files/shows/movies is legal but it's just not true. The various rulings in that case, including the Supreme Court decision , only specifically referred to "time-shifting" as being fair use. If you don't want to read that whole document (I recommend it since it's pretty important to those interested in the topic), here is a quote from the dissent:


"This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes. "


Again, my personal, long-followed belief is that this type of sharing should NOT be illegal since, in actuality, it *helps* the content provider. How many people have been turned onto a show because someone recorded an episode and passed it along? However, just because I believe it (and even if it's true), that still doesn't mean that it is a "fair use" under the law.


-Aaron

 

[Ace987]

I don't believe Sonic Blue should give up the fight over the issue of sharing shows. While both sides have good arguments over why sharing should be allowed or disabled, I don't believe that this function should be turned off.


For starters, just because it's there doesn't mean I'm using it to break copywrite laws. This is like saying VCRs should be illegal because people can copy movies off HBO, Starz, ect. and sell them on the street. This is certainly illegal, but 99.99% of people don't use VCRs this way. The same goes for guns. People can use guns for such illegal activities as killing and robbing, but certainly we shouldn't make guns illegal. Heck it's the Bill of Rights that we are allowed to carry arms.


I don't believe most of us would use this technology to share copywritted information in a way that would bankrupt greedy networks. If you don't believe me, look at this post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=131796

You'll see most people in this forum are against sharing shows that are paid for. Most people use this technology to share shows that will not be aired again or to watch a show they may have missed and won't be rerun for awhile. For the most part, I don't believe people send and receive shows on a regular basis. One of the main selling points of the 4000 was being able to share home videos and pictures, not copywritted material.


If anything, perhaps Sonic-Blue should put up a warning before sending a show that the activity may be illegal. Maybe put something in that would not allow certain shows to be sent, kinda like in VCRs that don't allow certain tapes to be copied. That's all I believe should happen. Anything else would be a tragedy.

 

[Babbster]

You might be right on with your last suggestion, Ace. I think a non-send bit, saved whenever a show is recorded from a "normal" TV channel could be the best way to solve the copyright issues. My fear is that, if they simply go ahead and "fight the good fight," we could end up with far more severe restrictions on PVR use. After all, while it is possible to record home video/audio to the ReplayTV box and then send it with minimum hassle to others, you can't deny that this is at best a secondary feature. One hard look at PlanetReplay will show that people are sharing primarily copyrighted material. Again, I am not one to criticize that for myself since I would do it in a heartbeat (come get me, copyright police), and it would be great if that sharing wasn't a violation but the way the law currently works (or doesn't) means that it is.


A winning army chooses its battles carefully. Once you let the enemy define the field, you're halfway to losing. I would suggest that it would be wise if Replay took some measures in the software to allay a court's potential fears before they get there. If they don't, then the court WILL side against SB and the company will suffer for it.


-Aaron

 

[ayu168]

This is bulls*it. I got RTV4000 series just because I can manually record from my DV cam and send it to my family and friends around the US so they can see it. Not many people are techies.

 

[KenL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Babbster After all, while it is possible to record home video/audio to the ReplayTV box and then send it with minimum hassle to others, you can't deny that this is at best a secondary feature. One hard look at PlanetReplay will show that people are sharing primarily copyrighted material. Again, I am not one to criticize that for myself since I would do it in a heartbeat (come get me, copyright police), and it would be great if that sharing wasn't a violation but the way the law currently works (or doesn't) means that it is.

Babbster they know exactly what they are doing. Just go review the Rio cases. And the sending has never allowed us to distribute copyrighted material to the public. Planet Replay in no different than having 15 people over to watch "Six Feet Under" it just doesn't propagate. We've been over and over this you can review some of the threads.


They've chosen their battles very carefully. This battle to innovate is a winner!!

 

[barmar]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace987 For starters, just because it's there doesn't mean I'm using it to break copywrite laws.

Except for the guy who says he uses it to send stuff that he records with his camcorder, what use is there that doesn't break copyright laws?


BTW, it's "copyright" (the right to copy), not "copywrite" (a job at a newspaper or publishing house).

Quote:

This is like saying VCRs should be illegal because people can copy movies off HBO, Starz, ect. and sell them on the street. This is certainly illegal, but 99.99% of people don't use VCRs this way.

If the courts hadn't realized that time-shifting was a common use of VCRs, they would be illegal, since broadcasters were concerned about pirating like that.


But non-infringing uses of the program-sharing feature of RTV 4K are extremely rare. It's hardly comparable to VCRs, which are primarily used for personal copies, much less for making copies for others.


SonicBlue realized that the sharing feature would be a concern to broadcasters. They put in the 15-copy and no-PPV restrictions to try to appease them -- if it couldn't be used for widespread pirating, maybe the networks wouldn't make a stink about. Obviously, they underestimated how thin the networks' skins are.

 

[Babbster]

Quote:

Originally posted by KenL Babbster they know exactly what they are doing. Just go review the Rio cases. And the sending has never allowed us to distribute copyrighted material to the public. Planet Replay in no different than having 15 people over to watch "Six Feet Under" it just doesn't propagate. We've been over and over this you can review some of the threads. They've chosen their battles very carefully. This battle to innovate is a winner!!

Forgive me, Ken, but that doesn't pass the laugh test. That's like saying that using 15 VCRs to record a show and then handing it out to 15 friends isn't distribution of copyrighted material.


Again, if I were in charge of the networks/studios/etc., I would encourage this in the limited fashion in which it is currently implemented (I might ask SB to knock the send number to 5) since I think that shows would actually end up with MORE viewers. But, since I'm not in charge, and since they are suing over this, the end-game is very clear. The option to send shows between Replay machines over the Internet without the express consent of the copyright holders WILL be found to be infringing for the simple fact that it is.


Let me offer you another perspective. I was involved in the production of an independent film a while back. We used my Replay to hold an early edit for easy transfer to VHS tapes so that various people involved in the production could view it and offer comments and suggestions. Now, what happens if I were a jerk (and it had been a 4000 unit) and decided to send it out to 15 people, one of whom decides to convert the movie to a "standard" format (much like people are doing when they are making VCDs and the like from Replay files) and then make it available via KaZaa? Our movie would become, over time, all but impossible to make a profit from since anyone remotely interested could just grab it off the Net.


As far as your comparisons to the Rio cases, that's just a crock too. The Rio problem had to do with format-switching and not with distribution of those files.


-Aaron

 

[calvin940]

Seems very defeatist to me (if that is even a word). I'd rather them fight it. Don't you think they thought about this very carefully before designing and releasing the 4000 line with it's features? I am not saying they are sure to win. There are many days when I feel they won't and am worried. However, I would rather take the risk for betterment than to rest on what we have. All the successes that we have had are built on risks we take (yes there are a lot of failures that result as well, but that's the cost).


If we didn't bother to try, we'd all still be cavemen and cavewomen. I also understand that you need to pick which things you don't do and which ones you do. As KenL said, SB had made their choice awhile ago and they are sticking it through. More power to them and us. It is worth the risk.


Calvin

 

[Babbster]

I think I was being too equivocal before. The more I participate in this discussion the more I realize the following: The transmission of copyrighted television programs between Replay boxes on the Internet should be stopped because it is a violation of copyright law. SonicBlue is dead wrong on this issue, and I hope that they lose if it comes down to a decision by the court.


Despite all the things I disagree with the studios about - like their belief that all consumers are potential pirates, their desire to place copy protection of some kind on every computer, their desire to put copy protection on HDTV signals, etc. - I think they're right in this particular case.


Now, putting the kibosh on people avoiding commercials is a crock, and I will happily sing out that SB is right on the Commercial Advance issue. However, I think that they are doing a disservice to themselves, and to their customers, in fighting this battle over Internet show-sending.


-Aaron

 

[calvin940]

Quote:

Originally posted by Babbster I think I was being too equivocal before. The more I participate in this discussion the more I realize the following: The transmission of copyrighted television programs between Replay boxes on the Internet should be stopped because it is a violation of copyright law. SonicBlue is dead wrong on this issue, and I hope that they lose if it comes down to a decision by the court. Despite all the things I disagree with the studios about - like their belief that all consumers are potential pirates, their desire to place copy protection of some kind on every computer, their desire to put copy protection on HDTV signals, etc. - I think they're right in this particular case. However, I think that they are doing a disservice to themselves, and to their customers, in fighting this battle over Internet show-sending. -Aaron

Sorry. I completely disagree. I won't argue the legality of these things because in truth, I don't believe in it. Simply because something exists as a law (or is considered legal vs illegal) doesn't make it right. There are many examples (but that I simply don't have an appropriate example to illustrate my point).


There is no reason that I should not see a show, if I *could* have seen this show. Period.


Calvin


(I decided that no analogy is better than an inappropriate one)

 

[Babbster]

You're making a pretty common mistake in this country: Mistaking the ability to do something with the right to do the same. You have no inherent right to watch any television show anytime you want, damn the law. You have the [non-guaranteed] right to time-shift. "Period."


-Aaron


(I decided that harping on someone over a retracted statement is just plain wrong. )

 

[calvin940]

Quote:

Originally posted by Babbster You're making a pretty common mistake in this country: Mistaking the ability to do something with the right to do the same. You have no inherent right to watch any television show anytime you want, damn the law. You have the [non-guaranteed] right to time-shift. "Period." -Aaron

But I am time-shifting. I am saying I could have watched the show. Meaning if I was at home at that time and I decided to tune to that episode of friends I could have watched it. As it may have happened, I was not at home. I then later request (and receive) that show. I am now watching it later. I have this time-shifted that. Is the fact that I am watching the show when I was actually not the person who recorded it a problem? Must I be the one to record it? Where is that line drawn? What if my wife recorded it? What if my son recorded it for me? What about if he lived downstairs? What if downstairs is a basement apartment (with a separate mailing address and not part of my house hold?


I have timeshifted this episode. I could have watched it had I been home. I was not. I requested the show from someone else. I received it and watched it. How is that wrong? There is letter of the law and spirit of the law... there are also extensions of a law. I see nothing wrong with my example. I feel that I am living within the time-shifting law. If not the exact letter, then certainly the spirit.


Calvin

 

[richardtallent]

I have to concede Babbster's point here.


The "share over the Internet" does not have "substantial non-infringing uses." Although the intentions of the users are well-meaning, they are in fact breaking copyright law. There is no fair use exception for "me and a few friends."


However, there should be an exception: content that is *first* broadcast over public airwaves (i.e., from regular TV stations) is paid for solely by advertising, and should be free to share in limited ways like the 4000-series permits, as long as it is shared in its original, captured form. This limitation is reasonable and fits well within the precedent set by Sony v. Universal. Note I said primarily: that doesn't mean *you* have to be using an antenna to pick it up, only that it is available in that way. Remember, cable and satellite companies are *required* under the "must-carry" provisions of the FCC code (47 USC 534(g)(1) and 47 USC 338) to retransmit local full-power television stations, with no money trading hands either way. If they can retransmit them freely, we should at least be able to send a show to an acquaintance from them. By making use of the public airwaves, the "cat is out of the bag," and their clear intention is for their content to be available at no cost to as wide an audience as they can muster.


Given the above, I believe it would be possible for SB to mark each station in the channel guide with a "broadcast" flag. If the flag is set, you can share content in a limited way, but just because you have HBO doesn't mean your friends should be able to have access to all of their content. If the guide database is too difficult to change without affecting the software, they could use a heuristic to only allow sharing content from channels whose names are 4 letters long and start with "K" or "W" and content manually-recorded from an unnamed video input.


With that proviso, I think SB could make a strong case that there is a "non-infringing use" under the argument that the stations have already, through their practice of broadcasting the content freely, shown that the content was paid for by the advertisers, and that more eyeballs over the 'Net can only mean more advertising value. As long as the advertising is faithfully copied as well, I see no difference between this and sharing a large outdoor antenna with a neighbor (or even a larger-scale version of this like what some neighborhoods do through a co-op to receive local channels). The end user shouldn't even have to watch the advertising (sorry Mr. Kellner), just as the sender wasn't required to.


However, that may not by itself do the trick: remember that satellite companies can't rebroadcast a network station to you unless you are either out of range of a local affiliate or obtain a waiver from them. This restriction (as stupid as it is) should be applied across the board until we can get Congress to remove it. Given a database of US broadcast station locations and zones and the receiver's ZIP code, it is possible to determine their local stations (the code already does this). Then the unit can just refuse to download content from other stations *if* they match a network the user has access to through another affiliate.


That doesn't consider the case that the user has a waiver though, and is pretty complicated software-wise, so an easier restriction might be that to receive a show recorded from a broadcast television channel, that station's call letters must also appear active in your channel guide. This seems a reasonable way to determine who has access to what, since setting up stations you don't have access to creates display and theme-recording problems (so the common user wouldn't think it worth the trouble).


Another possible restriction: the unit could restrict Internet sharing to within 60 days of the recorded broadcast, a reasonable time-shift period. I'm not fond of the idea (VHS tapes last longer and it seems unfair to apply a more stringent requirement to similar-quality digitized video), but if it was a deal-breaker for them I could live with it.


The end goals should be:


1) keeping the CA feature (which is already fair for VHS VCRs, there is no fairness in precluding this feature in tapeless recorders).


2) keeping the in-the-home convenience of streaming between units.


3) keeping SB from being required to encrypt the data on the hard drive, a la CSS, something the VCR companies don't have to do.


I see these as much more important than any reasonable restriction on the Internet-sharing feature.

 

[calvin940]

Although I would still be interested in having someone explain what is wrong with my earlier scenarios, I think that we have actually gotten off topic (off of babbster's topic). He feels that SB should "give up" to prevent rocking the boat. I say SB should challange the existing laws to provide a bit more flexibility and permit for innovation to make it's way through.


I think the risk of rocking the boat is worth the reward.


Calvin